Science

The Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017, Story 1: Mass Murderer Steve Paddock Was Prescribed A Very Addictive Anti-anxiety Drug Valium or Diazepam (Benzodiazepines) — Possible Adverse Effects of Benzodiazepines or Benzo Include Disinhibition and Aggressive Behavior — Benzos Are The Most Prescribed and Abused Drug in United States — Videos — Story 2: The Mass Murderer’s Former Girlfriend, Marilou Danley Is Now “A Person of Interest” — Flies Back To United States From Phillipines and Met By FBI To Answer Questions — Fully Cooperating With FBI — Knew Nothing of Friend’s Plans — The Criminal Investigation of Las Vegas Mass Murderer Killed 58 — 47 Fire Arms Recovered From Murder’s Hotel Room (23), Home (19), and Reno Home (7) — Videos — Story 3: Gun Grabbing Baby Killing Democrat Advocates vs. Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment Advocates — Real Aim of Gun Grabbers : Confiscate All Guns and Repeal Second Amendment — Gun and Ammunition Sales Booming — Make My Day  — Lying Lunatic Left Lies of Jimmy Kimmel — Videos

Posted on October 4, 2017. Filed under: Abortion, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Assault, Benghazi, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Chemistry, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Eugenics, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Killing, Knifes, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Lying, Media, Medical, Medicare, Monetary Policy, Movies, National Interest, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Privacy, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Science, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

 

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for list of psychotropic drugs

Story 1: Mass Murderer Steve Paddock Was Prescribed A Very Addictive Anti-anxiety Drug Valium or Diazepam (Benzodiazepines) — Possible Adverse Effects of Benzodiazepines or Benzos Include Disinhibition and Aggressive Behavior — Benzos Are The Most Prescribed and Abused Drug in United States — Videos —

Image result for drug valium diazepam

Psychiatric Drug Links to Violent Behavior

Psychiatric Drugs Homicide and Suicide The Connection

Vegas shooter was reportedly prescribed anti-anxiety meds

LAS VEGAS SHOOTER WAS ON VALIUM – HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS

Valium (Diazepam) Review and Side Effects

What Are The Side Effects Of Valium? | Learn The Dangerous Valium Side Effects Now!

Top 10 Most Abused Prescription Drugs

00:57 #10: Dilaudid [aka Hydromorphone]

01:56 #9: Soma [aka Carisoprodol]

02:45 #8: Ambien [aka Zolpidem]

03:48 #7: Valium [aka Diazepam]

04:52 #6:  Fentanyl

05:53 #5: Xanax [aka Alprazolam]

07:05 #4: Adderall

08:28 #3:Codine

09:26 #2: Vicodine

10:50 #1: OxyCotin [OxyCodone]

‘As Prescribed’ – Trailer for Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Documentary

The Many Faces of Benzo (Ativan Klonopin Xanax Valium) Withdrawal

What are Benzodiazepines? Benzo Facts and Effects

Facts You Should Know About Benzodiazepine Abuse

Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined

How I got myself off valium – Benzodiazepine

Valium withdrawal symptoms – benzodiazapines really are awefull to kick -Part 1 of 2)

Valium withdrawal symptoms – benzodiazapines really are awefull to kick – Part 2 of 2)

GABA Neurotransmitters, Anxiety, and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines

Dr. Von Stieff explains the dangers of what benzodiazepines do and how these GABA drugs, like Xanax and diazepam, can lead to prescription addiction and even cause alcoholics to relapse. Learn how benzodiazepine effects on GABA neurotransmitters can actually incite anxiety.

Alcohol Effects and Neurotransmitters: The GABA and Glutamate Balance

GABA Neurotransmitters and Glutamate

Relapse Prevention: Overcome Fear and Anxiety Attacks and Prevent Panic Attacks

MY BENZO EXPERIENCE: What it Feels Like to Take a Benzodiazepine for Anxiety

Some days I wake up with nearly crippling anxiety for no apparent reason. This was one of those days unfortunately and after suffering through my physical symptoms for many hours like I often do, I decided to take 1 mg of Ativan (Benzodiazepine) and film my experience on it and how it affected my anxiety.

The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging – Making a Killing – Full Documentary

SSRI Drugs are Dangerous!

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

Prescription for Mayhem: SSRI’s and The War on Drugs

#LasVegasShooting Live Stream Update: Dissecting the Preposterous, the Possible and the Probable

Psych Meds and Big Pharma and the Link to Shootings

19. Aggression III

May 14, 2010) Robert Sapolsky continues his neurobiological exploration of human aggression. He discusses correlations between neurotransmitter prevalence and aggression levels, aggressive activity differences from genetic variance, societal factors and application, amplification from alcohol, and crime and punishment.

20. Aggression IV

“Behave” by Robert Sapolsky, PhD

By Kyle Feldscher |   

Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.

“If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. “It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. … It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep.”

Paddock killed 59 people and injured more than 500 others when he opened fire with high-powered rifles from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Hotel late Sunday night. He shot into a country music festival taking place on the street below.

Officials continue to investigate the incident, the largest mass shooting in American history.

Questions remain over whey Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485

 

Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety medication Valium which can trigger aggressive behavior four months before Las Vegas massacre

  • Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety medication in June, records show
  • He was taking tablets of diazepam – or Valium – which can trigger aggression
  • It is not known why he was prescribed the drug or whether he had anger issues
  • Former neighbors said Paddock was a reclusive weirdo, while coffee shop workers said he was often rude to girlfriend Marliou Danley 
Stephen Paddock, the man behind America's worst ever mass shooting, was prescribed Valium months before the massacre

Stephen Paddock, the man behind America’s worst ever mass shooting, was prescribed Valium months before the massacre

Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed an anti-anxiety medication four months before shooting 58 people dead and wounding more than 500.

Paddock was prescribed 50 10 milligram diazepam tablets – also known as Valium – on June 21 by Vegas doctor Steven Winkler, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug that can trigger aggressive behavior in people with underlying behavioral problems, multiple studies have shown.

It is not known why Paddock was prescribed the drug, or whether he had any behavioral issues.

Multiple people who knew him, including his own brother Eric, say he displayed no outward signs of aggression and did not appear as the kind of person who would carry out a mass shooting.

Staff at Dr Winkler’s office would not confirm to the Review-Journal if Paddock had been a patient, and said the doctor would not be answering questions.

One study conducted in Finland, and another in Australia and New Zealand, linked the use of benzodiazepines – the class of drugs to which diazepam belongs – to increased instances of aggressive behavior.

On Sunday Paddock used a vantage point from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel to slaughter 58 people and wound more than 500 using high-powered rifles

On Sunday Paddock used a vantage point from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel to slaughter 58 people and wound more than 500 using high-powered rifles
Paddock’s medical history was revealed as more information emerged about America’s worst-ever mass shooter.

On Tuesday investigators said he wired $100,000 to the Philippines before carrying out his massacre, the same country that girlfriend Marilou Danley was visiting at the time of the killings and where she is believed to have been born.

FBI agents met Danley as she arrived back in the US from Manila on Tuesday and said she is a ‘person of interest’ in their investigation. 

Investigators have not revealed where or to whom the $100,000 was sent.

The news emerged after actress and Scientologist Kirstie Alley put out a series of tweets claiming a common denominator in mass killings – aside from guns – are psychiatric drugs.

‘We have to solve the mystery of why there were no ‘shooters’ or almost 0 before the 1980’s. I know one common denominator other than guns,’ Alley tweeted Monday.

‘One additional common denominator of ‘shooters’ is USA’s mass usage of psychiatric drugs. A % do have side effects of VIOLENCE & SUICIDE,’ continued the outspoken actress.

Elsewhere workers at a Starbucks in the town of Mesquite, where the couple lived, shed some light on their relationship – saying that Paddock was always rude to Danley whenever the pair came to the shop.

SIDE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM (VALIUM)

For most patients, these are the typical side effects:

  • drowsiness
  • tired feeling
  • dizziness
  • spinning sensation
  • fatigue
  • constipation
  • loss of balance
  • memory problems
  • restlessness
  • irritability
  • muscle weakness
  • nausea
  • drooling
  • dry mouth
  • slurred speech
  • blurred vision
  • double vision
  • skin rash
  • itching
  • lost interest in sex

However, the pamphlet that accompanies the medication tells patients to call their doctor if they experience the following symptoms:

  • thoughts about suicide or dying
  • new or worse anxiety
  • trouble sleeping (insomnia)
  • acting on dangerous impulses
  • attempts to commit suicide
  • feeling agitated or restless
  • new or worse irritability
  • an extreme increase in activity and talking (mania)
  • new or worse depression
  • panic attacks
  • acting aggressive, being angry, or violent
  • other unusual changes in behavior or mood

Mendoza said the abuse came when Danley would ask to use his casino card to purchase their drinks.

‘He would glare down at her and say, “You don’t need my casino card for this. I’m paying for your drink, just like I’m paying for you,'” Mendoza recalled.

She told the Los Angeles Times that Danley would then cower behind him and softly say, ‘OK’.

Meanwhile a former neighbor of Paddock’s from his time living in Reno described him as a reclusive ‘weirdo’ who barely spoke to anyone else on the street.

‘He would keep his face down, avoid all conversation and was just very unfriendly and strange,’ Susan Page told The Sun.

Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest Festival from a suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel on Sunday night with multiple rifles, some of which had been modified to effectively fire on full-automatic mode.

During an estimated 72 minute shooting spree he killed 58 people and wounded 527 in America’s worst ever mass shooting.

Paddock then took his own life as police breached the door of his hotel room.

Officers say they found 23 guns inside the room, most of them rifles, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition.

At Paddock’s home in nearby Mesquite they found another 19 weapons, along with explosive tannerite and fertilizer which can be used to make bombs.

Investigators have been unable to determine a motive for the attack, and the FBI says there is no evidence linking Paddock to any foreign terror organization despite ISIS claiming responsibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4947276/Stephen-Paddock-prescribed-Valium-Vegas-massacre.html#ixzz4uatJjYxV

 

 

Drug- Induced Behavioural Disinhibition

Incidence, Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications

Adverse Effects

Summary

Behavioural disinhibition implies the loss of restraint over some form of social behaviour. Such disinhibition can be drug induced and, on rare occasions, lead to extreme acts of aggression or violence. Examples of behavioural disinhibition are often considered paradoxical and rare reactions to drugs, but they may in fact be a more severe behavioural manifestation of a general effect that the drug has on emotions and behaviour. However, the incidence of drug-induced behavioural disinhibition varies considerably and cannot be estimated accurately, as accounts stem mainly from case reports rather than from controlled clinical trials. Adverse effects of drugs are rarely, if ever, the sole focus of clinical studies, although they are now monitored more rigorously in controlled trials.

There are numerous anecdotal case reports in the literature of behavioural disinhibition occurring during administration of benzodiazepines, and recent controlled trials have addressed this issue. The incidence varies with the population studied, but tends to be higher in patients with pre-existing poor impulse control. Alcohol (ethanol) potentiates the disinhibiting effect of benzodiazepines. Aberrant forms of disinhibited behaviour may be accompanied by memory loss.

Disinhibition has also been reported after treatment with tricyclic antidepressants, and reports are now appearing that describe disinhibition in patients who have been treated with selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors. These include incidents of akathisia, suicidal urges, agitation, hyperactivity and mania. They are more prevalent in children and those with learning disabilities.

Disinhibition is rare with antipsychotics and non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants but some isolated case reports contain descriptions of such reactions with newer compounds.

The most important drug variable in drug-induced behavioural disinhibition is dosage, although mode of administration is also important. Discontinuation of the drug is usually expected to resolve behavioural reactions, but in certain cases drug withdrawal may precipitate a reaction. In order to minimise drug-induced behavioural disinhibition, it is essential to always use the minimum dosage necessary, to increase the dosage gradually and to monitor the effects carefully. Multiple drug use should be avoided whenever possible.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00023210-199809010-00005

 

Disinhibitory reactions to benzodiazepines: A review

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Volume 49, Issue 5, May 1991, Pages 519-523

Abstract

This article reviews some of the important aspects of benzodiazepineinduced disinhibitory reactions. Although reactions of this type are relatively rare, they may sometimes manifest themselves in aggressive behavior accompanied by suicidal or homicidal tendencies. It appears that these reactions occur more commonly in younger patients, although the elderly (above 65 years) may also be at risk. Many mechanisms have been postulated, but none truly explain how these reactions arise. The concept that central cholinergic mechanisms may play a role, however, remains attractive and stems primarily from physostigmine’s ability to successfully reverse this type of reaction. The potential role of the benzodiazepine antagonists, eg, flumazenil, in reversing disinhibitory reactions is also discussed. Apart from patients who previously exhibited poor impulse control, there are no reliable indicators for recognizing potential candidates for this type of reaction. To minimize the occurrence of disinhibitory reactions, some guidelines, which include the avoidance of certain drug combinations, the use of low doses of benzodiazepines, slow incremental intravenous administration, and good rapport with patients, are presented.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027823919190180T

 

Benzodiazepines

What are Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines are a class of agents that work on the central nervous system, acting selectively on gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA-A) receptors in the brain. GABA is a neurotransmitter that inhibits or reduces the activity of nerve cells (neurons) within the brain. Benzodiazepines open GABA-activated chloride channels, and allow chloride ions to enter the neuron. This makes the neuron negatively charged and resistant to excitation.

All benzodiazepines work in a similar way but there are differences in the way individual benzodiazepines act on the different GABA-A receptor sub-types. In addition, some benzodiazepines are more potent than others or work for a longer length of time. Because of this, some work better than others in particular conditions. Benzodiazepines may be used in the treatment of anxiety, panic disorder, seizures, or sleep disorders. They may also be used as a muscle relaxant, during alcohol withdrawal, or before surgery to induce relaxation and amnesia (memory loss).

List of Benzodiazepines:

Filter by:
— all conditions —
Alcohol Withdrawal
Anxiety
Benzodiazepine Withdrawal
Bipolar Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Burning Mouth Syndrome
Cervical Dystonia
Chronic Myofascial Pain
Cluster-Tic Syndrome
Depression
Dysautonomia
Endoscopy or Radiology Premedication
Epilepsy
Hyperekplexia
ICU Agitation
Insomnia
Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome
Light Anesthesia
Light Sedation
Meniere’s Disease
Migraine Prevention
Muscle Spasm
Nausea/Vomiting
Nausea/Vomiting, Chemotherapy Induced
Night Terrors
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Opiate Withdrawal
Panic Disorder
Periodic Limb Movement Disorder
Restless Legs Syndrome
Sedation
Seizure Prevention
Seizures
Sleep Paralysis
Status Epilepticus
Tardive Dyskinesia
Temporomandibular Joint Disorder
Tetanus
Tinnitus
Drug Name DownUp( View by: Brand | Generic ) Reviews Ratings DownUp
Zetran (More…)
generic name: diazepam
1 review
  
10
Prosom (ProMore…)
generic name: estazolam
2 reviews
  
9.7
Alprazolam Intensol (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
7 reviews
  
9.6
Doral (ProMore…)
generic name: quazepam
3 reviews
  
9.5
Niravam (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
12 reviews
  
9.5
Diazepam Intensol (More…)
generic name: diazepam
6 reviews
  
9.4
Librium (ProMore…)
generic name: chlordiazepoxide
115 reviews
  
9.1
Tranxene (More…)
generic name: clorazepate
9 reviews
  
9.1
Xanax XR (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
52 reviews
  
9.1
Klonopin Wafer (More…)
generic name: clonazepam
17 reviews
  
8.9
Xanax (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
637 reviews
  
8.9
Serax (More…)
generic name: oxazepam
12 reviews
  
8.8
Dalmane (ProMore…)
generic name: flurazepam
11 reviews
  
8.7
Klonopin (ProMore…)
generic name: clonazepam
578 reviews
  
8.7
Valium (ProMore…)
generic name: diazepam
206 reviews
  
8.7
Halcion (ProMore…)
generic name: triazolam
20 reviews
  
8.6
Diastat (ProMore…)
generic name: diazepam
2 reviews
  
8.5
Lorazepam Intensol (ProMore…)
generic name: lorazepam
9 reviews
  
8.3
Ativan (ProMore…)
generic name: lorazepam
317 reviews
  
8.2
Restoril (ProMore…)
generic name: temazepam
63 reviews
  
7.5
Tranxene SD (More…)
generic name: clorazepate
2 reviews
  
7.0
Tranxene T-Tab (ProMore…)
generic name: clorazepate
0 reviews
  
7.0
Versed (More…)
generic name: midazolam
29 reviews
  
5.4
Onfi (ProMore…)
generic name: clobazam
5 reviews
  
5.2
Diastat AcuDial (More…)
generic name: diazepam
1 review
  
5.0
Diastat Pediatric (More…)
generic name: diazepam
0 reviews Add rating

Story 2: The Mass Murderer’s Former Girlfriend, Marilou Danley Is Now “A Person of Interest” — Flies Back To United States From Phillipines and Met By FBI To Answer Questions — Fully Cooperating With FBI — Knew Nothing of Friend’s Plans — The Criminal Investigation of Las Vegas Mass Murderer Killed 58 — 47 Fire Arms Recovered From Murder’s Hotel Room (23), Home (19), and Reno Home (7) — Videos —

 

Image result for person of interest marilou danley

WATCH: Girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter releases statement through lawyer

Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend thought him ‘kind & caring’

Steyn: Vegas shooter’s social media profile ‘weirdly blank’

Scott Adams offers another hypothesis on Stephen Paddock’s motivation

Scott Adams rules out some theories on the Vegas gunman

Scott Adams talks about the Vegas shooter and does an FBI profile on him

Scott Adams: FBI profile and possible motivation – Part 2

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | SPECIAL REPORT FROM THE LAS VEGAS W/ SEAN HANNITY

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | LAS VEGAS INCIDENT PUTS FOCUS ON GUN CONTROL DEBATE

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | DISCUSSING THE LAST NIGHT IN VEGAS W/ LOU DOBBS

Who Is Marilou Danley, Girlfriend Of Las Vegas Shooter? | NBC Nightly News

Las Vegas shooter’s girlfriend: Who is Marilou Danley?

Marilou Danley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Who is Marilou Danley?

Person of Interest: Season 1 Trailer

Person of Interest | Flashbacks S1-S4 | somewhat HD

 

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

Las Vegas massacre probe turns to gunman’s girlfriend in Philippines

by Reuters
Wednesday, 4 October 2017 02:36 GMT

ABOUT OUR HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE

From major disaster, conflicts and under-reported stories, we shine a light on the world’s humanitarian hotspots

(Recasts with latest law enforcement news conference, officials say death toll confirmed at 58 plus the gunman, 12 weapons found in hotel suite equipped with ‘bumper stocks’, 47 guns recovered altogether, purchased in four states, crime scene photos are authentic, paragraphs 1, 11-12, 15, 17)

* Live-in companion sought for questioning

* Wire transfer of $100,000 under examination

* Trump calls gunman ‘a sick, demented man’

* Killer amassed dozens of weapons, explosives, ammunition

* Massacre stirs gun control debate

By Sharon Bernstein and Alexandria Sage

LAS VEGAS, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The investigation into the motives of a Las Vegas retiree who killed 58 people in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history turned on Tuesday to the gunman’s girlfriend in the Philippines, where she turned up after the massacre, authorities said.

Stephen Paddock, who killed himself moments before police stormed the hotel suite he had transformed into a sniper’s nest on Sunday night, left no clear clues as to why he staged his attack on an outdoor concert below the high-rise building.

But law enforcement authorities were hoping to obtain some answers from a woman identified as Paddock’s live-in companion, Marilou Danley, who Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said was a “person of interest” in the investigation.

Lombardo, who said on Monday Danley was believed to be in Tokyo, told reporters on Tuesday she had been located in the Philippines and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the process of trying to bring her back to the United States.

“We are in conversations with her,” he told an afternoon news briefing. He reiterated police had no other suspects in the shooting itself.

Danley, an Australian citizen reported to have been born in the Philippines, had been sharing Paddock’s condo at a retirement community in Mesquite, Nevada, about 90 miles (145 km) northeast of Las Vegas, according to police and public records.

Investigators were examining a $100,000 wire transfer Paddock, 64, sent to an account in the Philippines that “appears to have been intended” for Danley, a senior U.S. homeland security official told Reuters on Tuesday.

The official, who has been briefed regularly on the probe but spoke on condition of anonymity, said the working assumption of investigators was that the money was intended as a form of life insurance payment for Danley.

The official said U.S. authorities were eager to question Danley, who described herself on social media websites as a “casino professional,” mother and grandmother, about whether Paddock encouraged her to leave the United States before he went on his rampage.

The official said investigators had also uncovered evidence that Paddock may have rehearsed his plans at other venues before ultimately carrying out his attack on the Route 91 Harvest country music festival from the 32nd floor suite of the Mandalay Bay hotel on the Las Vegas Strip.

ARSENAL RECOVERED

Fresh details about the massacre and the arsenal Paddock amassed emerged on Tuesday.

Police said Paddock strafed the concert crowd with bullets for nine to 11 minutes before taking his own life, and had set up cameras inside and outside his hotel suite so he could see police as they closed in on his location.

A total of 47 firearms were recovered from three locations searched by investigators – Paddock’s hotel suite, his home in Mesquite, and another property associated with him in Reno, Nevada, according to Jill Snyder, special agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Snyder said 12 of the guns found in the hotel room were fitted with so-called bump-stock devices that allow the guns to be fired virtually as automatic weapons. The devices are legal under U.S. law, even though fully automatic weapons are for the most part banned.

The rifles, shotguns and pistols were purchased in four states – Nevada, Utah, California and Texas – Snyder told reporters at an evening news conference.

A search of Paddock’s car turned up a supply of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be formed into explosives and was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal office building that killed 168 people, Lombardo said earlier.

Police also confirmed that photos widely published online showing the gunman’s body, his hands in gloves, lying on the floor beside two firearms and spent shell casings, were authentic crime-scene images obtained by media outlets. An internal investigation was under way to determine how they were leaked.

Video footage of the shooting spree on Sunday night caught by those on the ground showed throngs of people screaming in horror, some crouching in the open for cover, hemmed in by fellow concert-goers, and others running for cover as extended bursts of gunfire rained onto the crowd of some 20,000.

Police had put the death toll at 59 earlier on Tuesday, not including the gunman. However, the coroner’s office revised the confirmed tally to 58 dead, plus Paddock, on Tuesday night.

More than 500 people were injured, some trampled in the pandemonium. At least 20 of the survivors admitted to one of several hospitals in the area, University Medical Center, remained in critical condition on Tuesday, doctors said.

The union representing firefighters disclosed that a dozen off-duty firefighters who were attending the music festival were shot while trying to render aid to other spectators, two of them while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on victims.

“This is a true feat of heroism on their part,” said Ray Rahne of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

WHAT DROVE GUNMAN?

But the central, unanswered question to the bloodshed was what drove the gunman’s actions.

Federal, state and local investigators have found no evidence that Paddock had even incidental contacts with foreign or domestic extremist groups, and reviews of his history showed no underlying pattern of criminal behavior or hate speech, the homeland security official said.

While investigators had not ruled out the possibility of mental illness or some form of brain injury, “there’s no evidence of that, either,” the official said.

Paddock’s brother, Eric, has said he was mystified by the attack.

“It just makes less sense the more we use any kind of reason to figure it out,” Eric Paddock said in a text message on Tuesday. “I will bet any amount of money that they will not find any link to anything … he did this completely by himself.”

He said the family did not plan to hold a funeral for his brother, who was not religious, saying it could attract unwanted attention. He described his brother as a financially well-off enthusiast of video poker and cruises, with no history of mental health issues.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that Paddock had been “a sick man, a demented man.”

GUN DEBATE STIRRED

The attack stirred the fractious debate about gun ownership in the United States, which is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and about how much that right should be subject to controls.

Sunday’s shooting followed the massacre of 26 young children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, and the slaying of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando last year.

The latter attack was previously the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Democrats reiterated what is generally the party’s stance, that legislative action is needed to reduce mass shootings. Republicans, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, argue restrictions on lawful gun ownership cannot deter criminal behavior.

“We’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by,” said Trump, who strongly supported gun rights during his presidential campaign.

Paddock seemed unlike the troubled, angry young men who experts said have come to embody the mass-shooter profile in the United States.

Public records on Paddock point to an itinerant existence across the U.S. West and Southeast, including stints as an apartment manager and aerospace industry worker. He appeared to be settling in to a quiet life when he bought a home in a Nevada retirement community a few years ago.

(Additional reporting by Lisa Girion in Las Vegas, Jonathan Allen and Frank McGurty in New York, John Walcott, Susan Cornwell, Doina Chiacu and Jeff Mason in Washington, Bernie Woodall in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas and Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Writing by Steve Gorman and Scott Malone; Editing by Frances Kerry, Jonathan Oatis and Andrew Hay)

http://news.trust.org/item/20171003193434-ladhk

 

Las Vegas shooting suspect’s girlfriend is ‘person of interest’, says sheriff

  • Marilou Danley was in Philippines at time of shooting and remains there
  • Stephen Paddock placed cameras inside and outside his hotel room
The Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, flanked by Las Vegas’s Mayor Carolyn Goodman, left, and US representative Dina Titus, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday.
 The Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, flanked by Las Vegas’s Mayor Carolyn Goodman, left, and US representative Dina Titus, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend is “a person of interest” in the criminal investigation into America’s worst mass shooting, police said on Tuesday.

Sheriff Joseph Lombardo of Clark County said detectives are in contact with Marilou Danley, who was travelling in the Philippines at the time of the massacre and remains there. “The investigation with her is ongoing and we anticipate some further information from her shortly,” he told reporters. “Currently she is a person of interest.”

Lombardo declined to comment on an NBC news report that 64-year-old Paddock wired $100,000 to an account in the Philippines some time in the week before the attack.

Paddock opened fire from the windows of his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 59 people – all but three of whom have been identified – and injuring more than 500 at a country music festival. Police stormed his room and found he had killed himself.

Lombardo said the first report to police came at 10.08pm and Paddock continued to fire for nine minutes. The sheriff also told a press conference Paddock had set up cameras inside and outside his room, including one on a food service trolley. “I anticipate he was looking for anybody coming to take him into custody,” he said.

The evidence offers an insight into Paddock’s careful planning of the shooting. Lombardo said: “I’m pretty sure he evaluated everything that he did in his actions, which is troubling.”

Police have said they found 23 guns in Paddock’s room at the hotel. The sheriff added: “We are aware of a device called a bump stock that enables an individual to speed up the discharge of ammunition.” Bump stocks can be used to modify guns and make them fire as if they were fully automatic.

He also said authorities had completed their investigation at the gunman’s property in Reno, finding five handguns, two shotguns and a “plethora” of ammunition.

Paddock’s motive remains unknown. “This person may have radicalised, unbeknownst to us, and we want to identify that source.”

The sheriff said the number of people injured would go down slightly because of some double counting. “We also had very heroic acts of people attending the event … Citizens providing medical aid and transport for people to get to the hospital.”

Lombardo added: “It’s an ongoing investigation and when I say I don’t know, I may know … I assure you this investigation is not ended with the demise of Mr Paddock.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/las-vegas-shooting-girlfriend-marilou-danley-person-of-interest-sheriff

 

Person of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Person of interest” is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police are “interested,” either because the person is cooperating with the investigation, may have information that would assist the investigation, or possesses certain characteristics that merit further attention.

While terms such as suspecttarget, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[1]Unsub is a similar term which is short for “unknown subject” (used often, for example, in the TV show Criminal Minds). Person of interest is sometimes used as a euphemism for suspect, and its careless use may encourage trials by media.

With respect to terrorism investigations, Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times: “Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism. But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands.”[2]

History

According to Eric Lichtbau in the New York Times:

The term has an ugly history; in the 1960s American law enforcement officials began creating secret dossiers on Vietnam War protesters, civil rights leaders and other persons of interest…The vaguely sinister term has been applied to targets of terrorisminvestigations, the chief suspect in the murder of the Baylor basketball player Patrick Dennehy and Steven J. Hatfill, the scientist who has figured prominently in the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacksAttorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft is often credited with popularizing the person-of-interest label, having used it [in 2002] to describe Dr. Hatfill.[2]

The term was used widely in mass media at least as early as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing in reference to Richard A. Jewell. Its initial uses aroused controversy, but it has since seen increasingly regular use.[1] Jewell later remarked on the use of the term:

Question: Do you believe that the public will formulate the same idea about that person’s involvement in criminal activity upon hearing the term “person of interest”? Is this just a euphemism, just another way of saying “suspect”?

Jewell: I’d say so. The public knows what’s going on. Because of what happened to me, things have changed. It has definitely changed the way the media in Atlanta refer to people that are arrested or are suspects. And I’ve seen it on some of the national channels like Fox NewsNBC and CNN. They’ve all changed. Go back before 1996, at a shooting or a murder and see how they refer to the person whom they’re arresting in the incident. Compare that with something that’s recent and look at the difference. What happened to me is a factor in that change.[3]

Hatfill v. Ashcroft

The use of the term became widely critiqued when United States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft used it in a press conference when asked if Dr. Steven J. Hatfill was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks case. In 2002, Hatfill’s attorney filed a complaint with the Justice Department‘s Office of Professional Responsibility, arguing that “the term is not recognized in law or criminal procedure and that Ashcroft did not have the right ‘to preside over the public shredding of [Hatfill’s] life. This is un-American. Mr. Ashcroft owes Dr. Hatfill an apology.'”[4] Hatfill sued the Department of Justice for violation of federal privacy law; the case was settled in 2008 for $5.8 million.[5]

Definition

Normal Justice Department parlance for subjects of investigation includes “suspect,” “subject” and “target.” Each has specific meanings relevant to different levels of investigation. SenatorChuck GrassleyRepublican of Iowa, wrote to the Attorney General for clarification of the unfamiliar phrase in September 2002. In December of that year, Nuclear Threat Initiative‘s Global Security Newswire summarized the response as follows:[6]

… the U.S. Justice Department has said that it did not intend for Hatfill to come under such intense media scrutiny by describing him has a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation, according to department letters sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), which were released yesterday. … The department did not intend to cause any harm to Hatfill when it described him as a person of interest, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said in one of the letters. Instead, the department meant “to deflect media scrutiny” and “explain that he (Hatfill) was just one of many scientists” who had cooperated with the FBI investigation, Bryant said.

Grassley said yesterday that he appreciates the department’s replies to his inquiries. “I also appreciate the department’s candidness that the action regarding Mr. Hatfill and his employment is unprecedented,” Grassley said in a statement, and that “there is no … formal definition for the term ‘person of interest.’

See also

References

Story 3: Gun Grabbing Baby Killing Democrat Advocates vs. Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment Advocates — Real Aim of Gun Grabbers : Confiscate All Guns and Repeal Second Amendment — Gun and Ammunition Sales Booming — Make My Day  — Lying Lunatic Left Lies of Jimmy Kimmel — Videos

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for leading of blacks

Image result for leading killer of blacks is abortion

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Hannity 10/4/17 | Fox News Today October 4, 2017

Tucker Carlson Tonight 10/4/17 – Tucker Carlson Fox News October 4, 2017 TRUMP, REX TILLERSON

Tucker Carlson; Blasts Hillary Clinton over Gun Control Tweet moments after attack..!

Tucker Carlson; Blasts Hillary Clinton over Gun Control Tweet moments after attack..!

LAS VEGAS SHOOTER WAS ON VALIUM – HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS

Las Vegas Massacre: John Lott discusses gun laws and ownership

John Lott: The War on Guns

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott, Jr.: Why gun bans don’t work

John Lott: Evidence proves owning a gun is the best way to protect your family

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

In a talk given on the very day a gunman was apprehended at the University of Austin, American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and gun rights expert John Lott explains why guns bans only serve to increase gun crime rates, why the pilots should be armed, and how statistics prove that since the DC handgun ban was lifted, there has been a dramatic drop in the murder rate. Lott points to his research which proves that there isn’t a place in the world where a gun ban lowers gun crime, in fact stricter firearms regulation habitually leads to an increase in murder rates, because the only people who follow such regulations are law-abiding citizens who turn in their guns and thus leave themselves vulnerable to armed criminals who don’t obey the law. Speaking on the subject of pilots being armed, Lott points out that up until 1979, pilots were mandated to carry with them a loaded handgun and throughout decades of this policy there is not one example handguns causing a problem on an airliner, demolishing the innumerable “what if” hypothetical arguments of those who oppose arming the pilots, as well as the arguments against having concealed carry on college campuses. Lott details statistics that show since the Washington DC handgun ban was lifted, there has been a huge drop in murder rates, a fact that has received virtually no news coverage in the anti-second amendment establishment media. Crimes using guns since the ban was lifted fell by about three times as fast as other crimes not involving guns. Alternatively, since the Chicago gun ban in 1982, Lott documents how gun crime soared in both Chicago and surrounding areas.

Ben Shapiro Responds To Jimmy Kimmel

REBUTTAL: Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Rant | Louder With Crowder

Top 5 Gun Control Myths Debunked! | Louder With Crowder

HIDDEN CAM: “Gun Show Loophole” Exposed!

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall Lies | Louder With Crowder

Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

Gun Contol Penn and Teller Bull Shit

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

REBUTTAL: Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Rant | Louder With Crowder

  • Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

    Close up image of the Second Amendment

    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

    The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”[10][11]

    In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15]

    Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[16]

    Contents

     [show

    Text

    There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.[25][26]

    One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified.[27][28][29][30][31] As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:[32]

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to show only the text that would later be edited and ratified as the Second Amendment

    Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:[33]

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Pre-Constitution background

    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

    The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded in English law as an auxiliary to the long-established natural right of self-defense, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[34] The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[35] The bill states that it is acting to restore “ancient rights” trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[36] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was “clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia” and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[37]

    The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”[38] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[39] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional document, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.

    The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

    Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) … by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) … thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) … That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[38]

    The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[40][41]

    The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as “allowed by law.” This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.[42] There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688–89 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did “little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [sic].”[43]Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[44] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was “also declared” in the English Bill of Rights.[45][46]

    The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[47]

    Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided in Heller). Some in the United States have preferred the “rights” argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.[48] Without a regular army and police force (which in England was not established until 1829), it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[49]

    Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

    Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[50]

    Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]

    • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
    • participating in law enforcement;
    • deterring tyrannical government;[59]
    • repelling invasion;
    • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[60][61][62]
    • facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

    Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.[63]

    During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.[64]

    British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone’s summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[65] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[65] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars’ interpretation of Blackstone.[66]

    The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:

    Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[65]

    The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with regular French army and naval forces and various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[67] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown on an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.[68] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[69][70] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[71]

    Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison “did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.”[72]In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison’s intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[73]

    One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when “the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”.[74] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[75] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

    [I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[75][76]

    Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[77][78]Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 “the Right of the People to…institute new Government”) and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that “nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”).[79]

    There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about “the people” fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of “the people” (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent French Revolution.[80] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[81] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[65] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[82][83]

    Drafting and adoption of the Constitution

    James Madison (left) is known as the “Father of the Constitution” and “Father of the Bill of Rights”[84] while George Mason (right) with Madison is also known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights”[85]
    Patrick Henry (left) believed that a citizenry trained in arms was the only sure guarantor of liberty[86] while Alexander Hamilton (right) wrote in Federalist No. 29 that “little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed …”[76]

    In March 1785, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference to fashion a remedy to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New JerseyNew YorkPennsylvaniaDelaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[87][88]

    • interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
    • sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
    • a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

    It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states’ militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[89] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States by doing the following:[90]

    • raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    • provide and maintain a navy;
    • make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    • provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    • provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[91] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[92][93] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution’s adoption. This compromisepersuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[94] The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[95] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.

    Ratification debates

    The debate surrounding the Constitution’s ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[96]

    The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[97] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[98]though Whitehill’s language was never debated.[99]

    There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states’ reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[100][101]

    In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[102]

    A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved … Is it possible … that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”[103] Noah Webster similarly argued:

    Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[104][105]

    George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them … by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[104][106]

    Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights”, which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[107]

    Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[108]

    While both Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed …”[104][109]

    By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[104]

    Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

    James Madison‘s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[110]

    On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion,[111] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[112] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[113]

    In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before “shall not be infringed” and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[114]

    By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to “be passed upon distinctly by the States.”[115] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[116]

    The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[117] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[118]

    On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

    Militia in the decades following ratification

    Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America

    During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[64] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid – held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.[64] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantesassumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[64] On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:

    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]

    The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers “that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.”[119] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[120] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[121] None is mentioned in the legislation.[119]

    The Model 1795 Musket was made in the U.S. and used in the War of 1812

    The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[122] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[64] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[64] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice-President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[64] Congress did subsequently pass “[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines” on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[123]Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia’s poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.[121]

    Scholarly commentary

    Early commentary

    William Rawle of Pennsylvania (left) was a lawyer and district attorney; Thomas M. Cooleyof Michigan (right) was an educator and judge.
    Joseph Story of Massachusetts (left) became a U.S. Supreme Court justice; Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania (right) was a political economistand delegate to the Continental Congress.

    Richard Henry Lee

    In May of 1788, Richard Henry Lee wrote (Wikiquote link) in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a “militia.”

    George Mason

    In June of 1788, George Mason addressed (Wikiquote link) the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding a “militia.”

    Tench Coxe

    In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[124]

    As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[125][126]

    Tucker/Blackstone

    The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[127] Tucker wrote:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[128]

    In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government” and “whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.” Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”[127] Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker’s annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.[129]

    Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”[127]

    William Rawle

    Tucker’s commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England’s “arbitrary code for the preservation of game,” portraying that country as one that “boasts so much of its freedom,” yet provides a right to “protestant subjects only” that it “cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence” and reserves for “[a] very small proportion of the people[.]”[130] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

    No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[131]

    Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:[132]

    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[132][133]

    Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that “this right [to bear arms] ought not…be abused to the disturbance of the public peace” and, paraphrasing Coke, observed: “An assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace.”[130]

    Joseph Story

    Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[134] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment’s clear meaning:

    The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[135][136]

    Story describes a militia as the “natural defence of a free country,” both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a “moral check” against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[136]

    Lysander Spooner

    Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[137] Spooner’s theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[138] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a “right of resistance” is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.[139]

    The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.[140]

    Timothy Farrar

    In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”:[126][141]

    The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

    Judge Thomas Cooley

    Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,[142][143] and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the “right of the people”:

    It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.[144]

    Late 20th century commentary

    Assortment of 20th century handguns

    In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[145] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted.[146]

    The first, known as the “states’ rights” or “collective right” model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens “have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard”.[126] Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess firearms.[147] Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the “collective right” model.[148][149] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.[150]

    The second, known as the “sophisticated collective right model”, held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.[151][152] Some scholars have argued that the “sophisticated collective rights model” is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the “collective rights model.”[153] Other commentators have observed that prior to Emerson, five circuit courts specifically endorsed the “sophisticated collective right model”.[154]

    The third, known as the “standard model”, held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.[126] Supporters of this model argued that “although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms”.[155] Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the “absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment’s preamble does not render it a ‘dead letter’ because the preamble is a ‘philosophical declaration’ safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple ‘civic purposes’ for which the Amendment was enacted”.[156]

    Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[157] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[158] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[159] However, under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example – one of many reasons for the amendment.[45] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[160]

    The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[161] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.[162]

    Meaning of “well regulated militia”

    The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”.[163] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164]

    In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about “organizing”, “disciplining”, “arming”, and “training” of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

    If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security … confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority … [but] reserving to the states … the authority of training the militia … A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[76]

    Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: “In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the ‘natural right of self-defence’ and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right”:

    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[165]

    Justice Stevens in dissent:

    When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[166]

    Meaning of “the right of the People”

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people” – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[167]

    An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are “the People” when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:[168]

    The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people” … While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

    There were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms” instead of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.[169][170]

    Meaning of “keep and bear arms”

    In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term “to bear arms” implies only the military use of arms:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context – that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[167]

    In a dissent, joined by Justices SouterGinsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.[171]

    Supreme Court cases

    In the century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[172] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside.[173] In the Dred Scott decision, the opinion of the court stated that if African Americans were considered U.S. citizens, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”[174]

    State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the “individual rights” model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the “collective rights” model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The “collective rights” model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

    The Supreme Court’s primary Second Amendment cases include United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

    Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[175]

    Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in Heller said:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[176]

    United States v. Cruikshank

    In the Reconstruction Era case of United States v. Cruikshank92 U.S. 542 (1875), the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, “[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.”[177]

    The Court stated that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ……”[178] Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:

    The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.[179]

    Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.[180]

    Presser v. Illinois

    In Presser v. Illinois116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.[64][181]

    At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right “cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.” This decision upheld the States’ authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.[64] However the court said: “A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force.”[182]

    Miller v. Texas

    In Miller v. Texas153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an illegally carried handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law:[64] “As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law.”[183]

    Robertson v. Baldwin

    In Robertson v. Baldwin165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated in dicta that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:

    The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.[184]

    United States v. Miller

    In United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:

    Jack Miller and Frank Layton “did unlawfully … transport in interstate commerce from … Claremore … Oklahoma to … Siloam Springs … Arkansas a certain firearm … a double barrel … shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length … at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce … not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code … and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order … as provided by Section 1132C …”[185]

    In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated “the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.”[186] As the Court explained:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[187]

    Gun rights advocates claim that the Court in Miller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment.”[188] They also claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon’s suitability for the “common defense.”[189] Law professor Andrew McClurg states, “The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact.”[190]

    District of Columbia v. Heller

    Judgment

    The Justices who decided Heller

    According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[191] in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[191][192]

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.[191][192]

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.[191][192]
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.[191][192]
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.[191][192]
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.[191][192]
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.[191][192]
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.[191][192]
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. pp. 54–56.[191][192]
    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. pp. 56–64.[192]

    There are similar legal summaries of the Supreme Court’s findings in Heller.[193][194][195][196][197][198] For example, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up Heller’s findings and reasoning:

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense” (id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[199]

    Notes and analysis

    Heller has been widely described as a landmark decision.[200][201][202][203][204] To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:[205]

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[206]

    The Court’s statement that the right is limited has been widely discussed by lower courts and the media.[207][208][209][210][211] The majority opinion also said that the amendment’s prefatory clause (referencing the “militia”) serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing “the people”), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because “the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’….”[212]

    Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.[213]

    Stevens went on to say the following:

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.[214]

    This dissent called the majority opinion “strained and unpersuasive” and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” was referred to as a “hybrid” definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an “incoherent” and “[g]rotesque” idiomatic meeting.[214]

    Justice Breyer, in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that “the amendment protects an ‘individual’ right – i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred”.[215]

    Regarding the term “well regulated”, the majority opinion said, “The adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[216] The majority opinion also stated that:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[217]

    The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument.[218]

    Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.[192] The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. CruikshankPresser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes).[192]

    Heller pertained to three District of Columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting to a total ban. These three ordinances were a ban on handgun registration, a requirement that all firearms in a home be either disassembled or have a trigger lock, and licensing requirement that prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, such as from one room to another.

    Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster…. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District’s licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”[192]

    Justice Ginsburg has been a vocal critic of Heller. Speaking in an interview on public radio station WNYC, she called the Second Amendment “outdated,” saying:

    When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function … If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only – and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.[219]

    McDonald v. City of Chicago

    On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that “[i]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”[220] This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[14] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.[221]

    Justice Thomas noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to “citizens” whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any “person”, and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.[222] After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[222]

    In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

    Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[199]

    Caetano v. Massachusetts

    On March 21, 2016, in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self defense. The Court reiterated that the Heller and McDonald decisions saying that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”, that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”, and that the protection is not restricted to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15][223]

    United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller

    Before Heller

    Until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), United States v. Miller (1939) had been the only Supreme Court decision that “tested a congressional enactment against [the Second Amendment].”[224] Miller did not directly mention either a collective or individual right, but for the 62-year period from Miller until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson (2001), federal courts recognized only the collective right,[225] with “courts increasingly referring to one another’s holdings…without engaging in any appreciably substantive legal analysis of the issue”.[224]

    Emerson changed this by addressing the question in depth, with the Fifth Circuit determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[224] Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit conflicted with Emerson in Silviera v. Lockyer, and the D.C. Circuit supported Emerson in Parker v. District of Columbia.[224] Parker evolved into District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

    After Heller

    Since Heller, the United States courts of appeals have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws.[226][227] The following are post-Heller cases, divided by Circuit, along with summary notes:

    D.C. Circuit

    • Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 – On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures, the prohibition on assault weapons, and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.[228] On September 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit ruled that requiring gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws violated the Second Amendment, although the court upheld requirements that gun owners be fingerprinted, photographed, and complete a safety training course.[229]
    • Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 – On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a “good reason” to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession.[230]

    First Circuit

    • United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) – On August 31, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 5032, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under Heller. The court cited “the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns” and observed “the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms – those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public.”[231]

    Second Circuit

    • Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942 – On November 28, 2012, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s may-issue concealed carry permit law, ruling that “the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention.”[232]

    Fourth Circuit

    • United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) – On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.[233]
    • United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) – On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester’s conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).[234] The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on Heller’s exception for “presumptively lawful” gun regulations made in accordance with “longstanding prohibitions”.[235]
    • Kolbe v. Hogan, No. 14-1945 (4th Cir. 2016) – On February 4, 2016, the Fourth Circuit vacated a U.S. District Court decision upholding a Maryland law banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles, ruling that the District Court was wrong to have applied intermediate scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the higher strict scrutiny standard is to be applied on remand.[236] On March 4, 2016, the court agreed to rehear the case en banc on May 11, 2016.[237]

    Fifth Circuit

    • United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) – On June 30, 2008, the Fifth Circuit upheld 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.[238][239]
    • United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009) – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits “straw purchases.” A “straw purchase” occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.[233]
    • United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2010) – On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court noted that it had, prior to Heller, identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that Heller did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

    Sixth Circuit

    • Tyler v. Hillsdale Co. Sheriff’s Dept., 775 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014) – On December 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to firearms regulations when regulations burden “conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood.”[240] At issue in this case was whether the Second Amendment is violated by a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits possession of a firearm by a person who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. The court did not rule on the provision’s constitutionality, instead remanding the case to the United States district court that has earlier heard this case.[241] On April 21, 2015, the Sixth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, thereby vacating the December 18 opinion.[242]

    Seventh Circuit

    • United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009) – Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in Heller. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of intermediate scrutiny,[243] on July 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 10–1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation, citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective.[243] Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation, and will thus likely be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership.[244][245] Editorials favoring gun rights sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban,[246] while editorials favoring gun regulations praised the ruling as “a bucket of cold water thrown on the ‘gun rights’ celebration”.[247]
    • Moore v. Madigan (Circuit docket 12-1269)[248] – On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois’s ban on the concealed carrying of firearms to be unconstitutional. The court stayed this ruling for 180 days, so Illinois could enact replacement legislation.[249][250][251] On February 22, 2013, a petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a vote of 5-4.[252] On July 9, 2013, the Illinois General Assembly, overriding Governor Quinn’s veto, passed a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms.[253]

    Ninth Circuit

    • Nordyke v. King, 2012 WL 1959239 (9th Cir. 2012) – On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated an April 20 panel decision and reheard the case en banc on September 24, 2009.[254][255][256][257] The April 20 decision had held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, while upholding an Alameda County, California ordinance that makes it a crime to bring a gun or ammunition on to, or possess either while on, county property.[258][259] The en banc panel remanded the case to the three-judge panel. On May 2, 2011, that panel ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard by which to judge the ordinance’s constitutionality and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[260] On November 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the panel’s May 2 decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc.[261][262] On April 4, 2012, the panel sent the case to mediation.[263] The panel dismissed the case on June 1, 2012, but only after Alameda County officials changed their interpretation of the challenged ordinance. Under the new interpretation, gun shows may take place on county property under the ordinance’s exception for “events”, subject to restrictions regarding the display and handling of firearms.[264]
    • Teixeira v. County of Alameda, (Circuit docket 13-17132) – On May 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the right to keep and bear arms included being able to buy and sell firearms. The court ruled that a county law prohibiting a gun store being within 500 feet of a “[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served” violated the Second Amendment.[265]

    See also

    Notes and citations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017,Weather Warning — Part 1 of 2 — Will Be Revised and Updated Friday —  Story 1: Hurricane Harvey Tracking Towards Texas Gulf Coast — Stock Up On Gasoline, Water, Bread, Milk — Up to 3 Feet of Rain and Wind Speeds From 111-130 Miles Per Hour — Winds Will Hit Late Friday or Early Saturday Morning — Category 3 Hurricane — Damage Extensive — Will Hurricane Harvey  Change Course? — Videos

Posted on August 25, 2017. Filed under: American History, Breaking News, College, Communications, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Elections, Government, Government Spending, Highway, History, Human, Human Behavior, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Language, Life, Lying, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Science, U.S. Space Program, Uncategorized, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939,  August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902, May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901, May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900, May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899, May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898, May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897, May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896, May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895, May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894, May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893, May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892, May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891, May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890, May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889, May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888, May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887, May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886, May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885, May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884, May 1, 2017

Weather Warning — Part 1 of 2 — Will Be Revised and Updated Friday —  Story 1: Hurricane Harvey Tracking Towards Texas Gulf Coast — Stock Up On Gasoline, Water, Bread, Milk — Up to 3 Feet of Rain and Wind Speeds From 111-130 Miles Per Hour — Winds Will Hit Late Friday or Early Saturday Morning — Category 3 Hurricane — Damage Extensive — Will Hurricane Harvey  Change Course? — Videos

Image result for hurrican havey

Image result for hurricane harvey as of august 24, 2017 at 5pmImage result for cartoons about hurricane harveyImage result for categories of storms and hurricanesImage result for categories of storms and hurricanesImage result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanesImage result for hurrican havey as of august 24, 2017

Image result for hurricane harvey as of august 24, 2017 at 5pmImage result for cartoons about hurricane harvey

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Image result for categories of storms and hurricanes

Super Hurricanes and Typhoons

Hurricanes 101 | National Geographic

Why Hurricane Categories Make a Difference

‘Dire situation’: Harvey rapidly intensifying in Gulf

Hurricane Harvey is headed for the Texas coast

Hurricane Harvey creeps up on Texas coast

Texas braces for Tropical Storm Harvey

Thursday Night: Harvey Concerns

Hurricane Harvey Intensifies As It Roars Towards Texas | NBC Nightly News

Hurricane Harvey grows stronger, threatens Gulf Coast

Hurricane Harvey Landfall Houston Texas & Corpus Christi – Storm Gulf of Mexico 8/24/2017

BREAKING: Hurricane Harvey On Collision Course With Texas

Hurricane Harvey Update 5:00 pm August 24, 2017

Galveston Storm of 1900

Galveston: Home of America’s Deadliest Natural Disaster

Published on Sep 28, 2011

On Sept. 8, 1900, an unnamed hurricane slammed into the unprotected barrier island of Galveston, Texas, killing between 6,000 and 8,000 people. More than 111 years later, the natural disaster stands as the worst in the history of the United States. Watch the NewsHour Health Unit’s report on long-term recovery efforts after Hurricane Ike, Galveston’s most recent disaster: http://to.pbs.org/oFWSso.

1935 Labor Day Hurricane-Graphic Death & Destruction!

Remembering 1935 Labor Day hurricane, most intense to ever hit U.S.

Top 10 DEADLIEST Hurricanes of ALL TIME! (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy)

Earth’s Biggest Typhoon Superstorms (720p)

Published on Sep 1, 2014

This educational HD video explains the phenomena known as a typhoon or cyclone the the people survived. Typhoons originate mostly in Asia with six conditions required for formation: warm sea surface temperatures, atmospheric instability, high humidity in the lower to middle levels of the troposphere, enough Coriolis force to develop a low pressure center, a pre-existing low level focus or disturbance, and low vertical wind shear.

 

Saffir–Simpson scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Saffir–Simpson scale
Category Wind speeds
Five ≥70 m/s, ≥137 knots
≥157 mph, ≥252 km/h
Four 58–70 m/s, 113–136 knots
130–156 mph, 209–251 km/h
Three 50–58 m/s, 96–112 knots
111–129 mph, 178–208 km/h
Two 43–49 m/s, 83–95 knots
96–110 mph, 154–177 km/h
One 33–42 m/s, 64–82 knots
74–95 mph, 119–153 km/h
Related classifications
Tropical
storm
18–32 m/s, 34–63 knots
39–73 mph, 63–118 km/h
Tropical
depression
≤17 m/s, ≤33 knots
≤38 mph, ≤62 km/h

The Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale (SSHWS), formerly the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale (SSHS), classifies hurricanes – Western Hemisphere tropical cyclones that exceed the intensities of tropical depressions, and tropical storms – into five categories distinguished by the intensities of their sustained winds. To be classified as a hurricane, a tropical cyclone must have maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph (33 m/s; 64 kn; 119 km/h) (Category 1). The highest classification in the scale, Category 5, is reserved for storms with winds exceeding 156 mph (70 m/s; 136 kn; 251 km/h).

The classifications can provide some indication of the potential damage and flooding a hurricane will cause upon landfall.

Officially, the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale is used only to describe hurricanes forming in the Atlantic Ocean and northern Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line. Other areas use different scales to label these storms, which are called “cyclones” or “typhoons“, depending on the area.

There is some criticism of the SSHS for not taking rain, storm surge, and other important factors into consideration, but SSHS defenders say that part of the goal of SSHS is to be straightforward and simple to understand.

History

In 1967 Robert Simpson became the director of the National Hurricane Center and started to look at the problem of communicating the forecasts to the public better. During 1968 Robert spoke to Herbert Saffir about work that he had just completed for the United Nations, about damage to structures that was expected by winds of different strengths.

The scale was developed in 1971 by civil engineer Herbert Saffir and meteorologist Robert Simpson, who at the time was director of the U.S. National Hurricane Center (NHC).[1] The scale was introduced to the general public in 1973,[2] and saw widespread use after Neil Frank replaced Simpson at the helm of the NHC in 1974.[3]

The initial scale was developed by Saffir, a structural engineer, who in 1969 went on commission for the United Nations to study low-cost housing in hurricane-prone areas.[4] While performing the study, Saffir realized there was no simple scale for describing the likely effects of a hurricane. Mirroring the utility of the Richter magnitude scale in describing earthquakes, he devised a 1–5 scale based on wind speed that showed expected damage to structures. Saffir gave the scale to the NHC, and Simpson added the effects of storm surgeand flooding.

In 2009, the NHC made moves to eliminate pressure and storm surge ranges from the categories, transforming it into a pure wind scale, called the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (Experimental) [SSHWS].[5] The new scale became operational on May 15, 2010.[6]The scale excludes flood ranges, storm surge estimations, rainfall, and location, which means a Category 2 hurricane which hits a major city will likely do far more cumulative damage than a Category 5 hurricane that hits a rural area.[7] The agency cited various hurricanes as reasons for removing the “scientifically inaccurate” information, including Hurricane Katrina (2005) and Hurricane Ike (2008), which both had stronger than estimated storm surges, and Hurricane Charley (2004), which had weaker than estimated storm surge.[8] Since removed from the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale, storm surge predicting and modeling is now handled with the use of a computerized numerical model developed by the National Weather Service called “Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes” (SLOSH).

In 2012, the NHC expanded the windspeed range for Category 4 by 1 mph in both directions, to 130–156 mph, with corresponding changes in the other units (113–136 kn, 209–251 km/h), instead of 131–155 mph (114–135 kn, 210–249 km/h). The NHC and the Central Pacific Hurricane Center assign tropical cyclone intensities in 5 knot increments, and then convert to mph and km/h with a similar rounding for other reports. So an intensity of 115 knots is rated Category 4, but the conversion to miles per hour (132.3 mph) would round down to 130 mph, making it appear to be a Category 3 storm. Likewise, an intensity of 135 knots (~155 mph, and thus Category 4) is 250.02 km/h, which according to the definition used before the change would be Category 5. To resolve these issues, the NHC had been obliged to incorrectly report storms with wind speeds of 115 kn as 135 mph, and 135 kn as 245 km/h. The change in definition allows storms of 115 kn to be correctly rounded down to 130 mph, and storms of 135 kn to be correctly reported as 250 km/h, and still qualify as Category 4. Since the NHC had previously rounded incorrectly to keep storms in Category 4 in each unit of measure, the change does not affect the classification of storms from previous years.[5] The new scale became operational on May 15, 2012.[9]

Categories

The scale separates hurricanes into five different categories based on wind. The U.S. National Hurricane Center classifies hurricanes of Category 3 and above as major hurricanes, and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center classifies typhoons of 150 mph or greater (strong Category 4 and Category 5) as super typhoons (although all tropical cyclones can be very dangerous). Most weather agencies use the definition for sustained winds recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which specifies measuring winds at a height of 33 ft (10.1 m) for 10 minutes, and then taking the average. By contrast, the U.S. National Weather ServiceCentral Pacific Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center define sustained winds as average winds over a period of one minute, measured at the same 33 ft (10.1 m) height,[10][11] and that is the definition used for this scale. Intensity of example hurricanes is from both the time of landfall and the maximum intensity.

The scale is roughly logarithmic in wind speed, and the top wind speed for Category “c” (c=1 to 4, as there is no upper limit for category 5) can be expressed as 83×10^(c/15) miles per hour rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 – except that after the change mentioned above, Category 4 is now widened by 1 mph in each direction.

The five categories are, in order of increasing intensity:

Category 1

Category 1
Sustained winds Example
33–42 m/s
64–82 kn
119–153 km/h
74–95 mph
Newton 2016-09-06 1825Z.jpg
Hurricane Newton in 2016 making landfall.

Very dangerous winds will produce some damage

Category 1 storms usually cause no significant structural damage to most well-constructed permanent structures; however, they can topple unanchored mobile homes, as well as uproot or snap weak trees. Poorly attached roof shingles or tiles can blow off. Coastal flooding and pier damage are often associated with Category 1 storms. Power outages are typically widespread to extensive, sometimes lasting several days. Even though it is the least intense type of hurricane, the storm can still produce widespread damage and can be a life-threatening storm.[5]

Hurricanes that peaked at Category 1 intensity, and made landfall at that intensity include: Flossy (1956), Gladys (1968), Agnes (1972), Juan (1985), Ismael (1995), Claudette (2003), Gaston (2004), Stan (2005), Humberto (2007), Isaac (2012), Manuel (2013), Earl (2016), Hermine (2016), Newton (2016), and Franklin (2017).

Category 2

Category 2
Sustained winds Example
43–49 m/s
83–95 kn
154–177 km/h
96–110 mph
Arthur Jul 3 2014 1615Z.jpg
Arthur in 2014 approaching North Carolina

Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage

Storms of Category 2 intensity often damage roofing material (sometimes exposing the roof) and inflict damage upon poorly constructed doors and windows. Poorly constructed signs and piers can receive considerable damage and many trees are uprooted or snapped. Mobile homes, whether anchored or not, are typically damaged and sometimes destroyed, and many manufactured homes also suffer structural damage. Small craft in unprotected anchorages may break their moorings. Extensive to near-total power outages and scattered loss of potable water are likely, possibly lasting many days.[5]

Hurricanes that peaked at Category 2 intensity, and made landfall at that intensity include: Alice (1954), Fifi (1974), Diana (1990), Calvin (1993), Gert (1993), Rosa (1994), Erin (1995), Alma (1996), Juan (2003), Alex(2010), Tomas (2010), Carlotta (2012), Ernesto (2012), Richard (2012), and Arthur (2014).

Category 3

Category 3
Sustained winds Example
50–58 m/s
96–112 kn
178–208 km/h
111–129 mph
Otto 2016-11-24 1605Z.jpg
Hurricane Otto near its landfall on Nicaragua.

Devastating damage will occur

Tropical cyclones of Category 3 and higher are described as major hurricanes in the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific basins. These storms can cause some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings, particularly those of wood frame or manufactured materials with minor curtain wall failures. Buildings that lack a solid foundation, such as mobile homes, are usually destroyed, and gable-end roofs are peeled off. Manufactured homes usually sustain severe and irreparable damage. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures, while larger structures are struck by floating debris. A large number of trees are uprooted or snapped, isolating many areas. Additionally, terrain may be flooded well inland. Near-total to total power loss is likely for up to several weeks and water will likely also be lost or contaminated.[5]

Hurricanes that peaked at Category 3 intensity, and made landfall at that intensity include: Carol (1954), Hilda (1955), Audrey (1957), Celia (1970), Eloise (1975), Olivia (1975), Alicia (1983), Elena (1985), Roxanne(1995), Fran (1996), Isidore (2002), Lane (2006), Karl (2010), Sandy (2012) and Otto (2016).

Category 4

Category 4
Sustained winds Example
58–70 m/s
113–136 kn
209–251 km/h
130–156 mph
Joaquin 2015-10-02 1530Z.jpg
Joaquin at Bahamian landfall

Catastrophic damage will occur

Category 4 hurricanes tend to produce more extensive curtainwall failures, with some complete structural failure on small residences. Heavy, irreparable damage and near complete destruction of gas station canopies and other wide span overhang type structures are common. Mobile and manufactured homes are often flattened. Most trees, except for the heartiest, are uprooted or snapped, isolating many areas. These storms cause extensive beach erosion, while terrain may be flooded far inland. Total and long-lived electrical and water losses are to be expected, possibly for many weeks.[5]

The 1900 Galveston hurricane, the deadliest natural disaster to hit the United States, peaked at an intensity that corresponds to a modern-day Category 4 storm. Other examples of storms that peaked at Category 4 intensity, and made landfall at that intensity include: Hazel (1954), Gracie (1959), Flora (1963), Cleo (1964), Madeline (1976), Frederic (1979), Joan (1988), Iniki (1992), Luis (1995), Iris (2001), Charley (2004), Dennis (2005), Gustav (2008), Ike (2008) and Joaquin (2015).

Category 5

Category 5
Sustained winds Example
≥ 70 m/s
≥ 137 kn
≥ 252 km/h
≥ 157 mph
Felix from ISS 03 sept 2007 1138Z.jpg
Felix near peak intensity

Catastrophic damage will occur

Category 5 is the highest category of the Saffir–Simpson scale. These storms cause complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings, and some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. Collapse of many wide-span roofs and walls, especially those with no interior supports, is common. Very heavy and irreparable damage to many wood frame structures and total destruction to mobile/manufactured homes is prevalent. Only a few types of structures are capable of surviving intact, and only if located at least 3 to 5 miles (5 to 8 km) inland. They include office, condominium and apartment buildings and hotels that are of solid concrete or steel frame construction, public multi-story concrete parking garages, and residences that are made of either reinforced brick or concrete/cement block and have hipped roofs with slopes of no less than 35 degrees from horizontal and no overhangs of any kind, and if the windows are either made of hurricane-resistant safety glass or covered with shutters. Unless all of these requirements are met, the absolute destruction of a structure is certain.[5]

The storm’s flooding causes major damage to the lower floors of all structures near the shoreline, and many coastal structures can be completely flattened or washed away by the storm surge. Virtually all trees are uprooted or snapped and some may be debarked, isolating most communities impacted. Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required if the hurricane threatens populated areas. Total and extremely long-lived power outages and water losses are to be expected, possibly for up to several months.[5]

Historical examples of storms that made landfall at Category 5 status include: Janet (1955), Camille (1969), Edith (1971), Anita (1977), David (1979), Gilbert (1988), Andrew (1992),Katrina (2005), Dean (2007), and Felix (2007). No Category 5 hurricane is known to have made landfall as such in the eastern Pacific basin.

Criticism

Some scientists, including Kerry Emanuel and Lakshmi Kantha, have criticized the scale as being simplistic, indicating that the scale takes into account neither the physical size of a storm nor the amount of precipitation it produces.[7] Additionally, they and others point out that the Saffir–Simpson scale, unlike the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes, is not continuous, and is quantized into a small number of categories. Proposed replacement classifications include the Hurricane Intensity Index, which is based on the dynamic pressure caused by a storm’s winds, and the Hurricane Hazard Index, which bases itself on surface wind speeds, the radius of maximum winds of the storm, and its translational velocity.[12][13] Both of these scales are continuous, akin to the Richter scale;[14] however, neither of these scales have been used by officials.

Should a ‘Category 6’ be introduced?

After the series of powerful storm systems of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, a few newspaper columnists and scientists brought up the suggestion of introducing Category 6, and they have suggested pegging Category 6 to storms with winds greater than 174 or 180 mph (78 or 80 m/s; 151 or 156 kn; 280 or 290 km/h).[7][15] Only a few storms of this intensity have been recorded. Of the 31 hurricanes currently considered to have attained Category 5 status in the Atlantic, only 16 had wind speeds at 175 mph (78 m/s; 152 kn; 282 km/h) or greater and only 6 had wind speeds at 180 mph (80 m/s; 160 kn; 290 km/h) or greater. Of the 15 hurricanes currently considered to have attained Category 5 status in the eastern Pacific, only five had wind speeds at 175 mph (78 m/s; 152 kn; 282 km/h) or greater (PatsyJohnLindaRick and Patricia), and only three had wind speeds at 180 mph (80 m/s; 160 kn; 290 km/h) or greater (Linda, Rick and Patricia). However, most storms which would be eligible for this category were typhoons in the western Pacific, most notably Typhoon Tip in 1979 with sustained winds of 190 mph (310 km/h) and typhoons Haiyan and Meranti in 2013 and 2016, respectively, with sustained winds of 195 mph (314 km/h).[16]

According to Robert Simpson, there are no reasons for a Category 6 on the Saffir–Simpson Scale because it is designed to measure the potential damage of a hurricane to man-made structures. Simpson stated that “…when you get up into winds in excess of 155 mph (249 km/h) you have enough damage if that extreme wind sustains itself for as much as six seconds on a building it’s going to cause rupturing damages that are serious no matter how well it’s engineered”.[3]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Williams, Jack (May 17, 2005). “Hurricane scale invented to communicate storm danger”USA Today. Retrieved February 25, 2007.
  2. Jump up^ Staff writer (May 9, 1973). “’73, Hurricanes to be Graded”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on May 19, 2016. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
  3. Jump up to:a b Debi Iacovelli (July 2001). “The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale: An Interview with Dr. Robert Simpson”Sun-Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Retrieved September 10, 2006.
  4. Jump up^ Press Writer (August 23, 2001). “Hurricanes shaped life of scale inventor”. Retrieved March 20, 2016.[dead link]
  5. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h The Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale National Hurricane Center. Accessed 2009-05-15.
  6. Jump up^ National Hurricane Operations PlanNOAA. Accessed July 3, 2010.
  7. Jump up to:a b c Ker Than (October 20, 2005). “Wilma’s Rage Suggests New Hurricane Categories Needed”LiveScience. Retrieved October 20, 2005.
  8. Jump up^ “Experimental Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale” (PDF). National Hurricane Center. 2009.
  9. Jump up^ Public Information StatementNOAA. Accessed March 9, 2012.
  10. Jump up^ Tropical Cyclone Weather Services Program (June 1, 2006). “Tropical cyclone definitions” (PDF). National Weather Service. Retrieved November 30, 2006.
  11. Jump up^ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004). “Hurricane Glossary of Terms”. Archived from the original on December 14, 2005. Retrieved March 24, 2006. Accessed through the Wayback Machine.
  12. Jump up^ Kantha, L. (January 2006). “Time to Replace the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale?” (PDF). Eos87 (1): 3, 6. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87….3Kdoi:10.1029/2006eo010003. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
  13. Jump up^ Kantha, Lakshmi (February 2008). “Tropical Cyclone Destructive Potential by Integrated Kinetic Energy” (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Boston: American Meteorological Society89 (2): 219–221. Bibcode:2008BAMS…89..219Kdoi:10.1175/BAMS-89-2-219.
  14. Jump up^ Benfield Hazard Research Centre (2006). “Atmospheric Hazards”Hazard & Risk Science Review 2006University College London. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
  15. Jump up^ Bill Blakemore (May 21, 2006). “Category 6 Hurricanes? They’ve Happened: Global Warming Winds Up Hurricane Scientists as NOAA Issues Its Atlantic Hurricane Predictions for Summer 2006”ABC News. Retrieved September 10, 2006.
  16. Jump up^ Debi Iacovelli and Tim Vasquez (1998). “Supertyphoon Tip: Shattering all records” (PDF). Monthly Weather Log. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved September 19, 2010.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scale

List of United States hurricanes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continental United States hurricane strikes 1950-2007

The list of United States hurricanes includes all tropical cyclones officially recorded to have produced sustained winds of greater than 74 mph (118 km/h) in the United States, which is the minimum threshold for hurricane intensity. The list, which is sorted by U.S. state, begins in 1851 with the start of the official Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT), as provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s Hurricane Research Division; the data from 1951 to 1979 is subject to change, due to the lack of official wind speed estimates during the time period. Since 1851, a total of 291 North Atlantic hurricanes produced hurricane-force winds in 19 states along the Atlantic coast. Some of these storms may not have made a direct landfall (i.e. remained just offshore) while producing hurricane-force winds on land; some of them may have weakened to a tropical storm or became extratropical before landfall but produced hurricane conditions on land while still a hurricane and some of them made landfall in an adjacent state but produced hurricane conditions over multiple states. This list does not include storms that only produced tropical storm conditions on land in the United States.

Additionally, three Pacific hurricanes struck Hawaii, and one Pacific tropical cyclone brought hurricane-force winds to California. The tables list hurricanes by category on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, based on winds that occurred in each state.

Statistics

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Delaware Maryland New Hampshire New Jersey Massachusetts Connecticut West Virginia Vermont Rhode Island

Map of USA with state names.svg

About this image
Map of the United States; click on individual states to be directed to its article,
or click on some coastal states to be directed to a list of tropical cyclones in those locations

A total of 291 Atlantic tropical cyclones have produced hurricane-force winds in every state along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, as well as PennsylvaniaFlorida was affected by 118 hurricanes, which is more than any other state; Texas ranked second. Hurricane Donna affected a total of eight states—more than any other hurricane.[1]

The earliest time in the year for a hurricane to strike the nation was June 9, which was set by Hurricane Alma in 1966. The earliest major hurricane to strike the nation occurred in 1934, when an unnamed tropical cyclone made landfall on June 16. The latest in the year for a hurricane to strike the nation was on November 24 with Hurricane Iwa in Hawaii; for the Atlantic basin the latest was on November 22, which was set by Hurricane Kate in 1985. The latest in the year for a major hurricane to strike the nation was from the 1921 Tampa Bay hurricane, which moved ashore on October 25.[1]

The 1880s were the most active decade for the United States, with a total of 25 hurricanes affecting the nation. By contrast, the least active decade was the 1970s, with a total of only 12 hurricanes affecting the American coastline. A total of 33 seasons on record passed without an Atlantic hurricane affecting the country—the most recent of which was the 2015 season. Seven Atlantic hurricanes affected the country in the 1886 season, which was the year with the most United States hurricanes.[1]

Impact

The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 was the most intense hurricane to make landfall on the country, having struck the Florida Keys with a pressure of 892 mbar. It was one of only three hurricanes to move ashore as a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale; the others were Hurricane Camille in 1969 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which had a landfalling pressure of 900 mbar and 922 mbar, respectively. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the third most intense hurricane to strike the country with a pressure of 920 mbar, though its winds were not as strong as Andrew.[2]

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the deadliest hurricane in the history of the United States, killing at least 8,000 people. The 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane caused at least 2,500 casualties, and in 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed about 1,500 people. In the 1893 season, two hurricanes each caused over 1,000 deaths.[2]

Accounting for inflation, nine Atlantic hurricanes caused a damage total of over $10 billion (2006 USD), including three from the 2005 season. The costliest was Hurricane Katrina, with damage amounting to $84.6 billion, though in normalized dollars it may only be second to the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. Of the thirty costliest United States hurricanes, ten were after the year 2000.[2]

A 2010 study published in Natural Hazards Review, a journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, “Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United State: 1900-2005” (PDF), analyzed storm-related property damage figures from 1900 through 2005 adjusted (“normalized”) for inflation, wealth and population factors over time. The study found that: 1) Using normalized figures, hurricane-related damages steadily increased from 1900 to 2005; 2) Based on the adjusted data, Hurricane Katrina is the second-most destructive storm in U.S. history. The top-ranking storm in terms of property damage is the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926, with losses between $140–157 billion in 2005 dollars; 3) While 1996–2005 was the second-most costly period for storm-related damages, the preceding periods of 1976–1985 and 1986–1995 were “anomalously benign,” accounting for only 10% of all storm damage reported since 1900; 4) Approximately 85% of all storm-related damages occur in the months of August (35%) and September (50%).[3]

States bordering the Atlantic Ocean

The category listed for each state indicates the maximum category of sustained winds that was recorded or analyzed to have occurred in that state. It is not necessarily the category of the storm at the time of landfall or closest approach (if the strongest winds were occurring elsewhere or only over water at the time).

Alabama

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 3 August 26 1852 Unnamed 2 October 18 1916
Unnamed 1 September 29 1917 Unnamed 3 August 21 1926
Unnamed 1[notes 1] August 31 1856 Unnamed 1 September 1 1932
Unnamed 1 September 16 1859 Baker 1 August 31 1950
Unnamed 2 August 12 1860 Camille 1 August 18 1969
Unnamed 1 September 16 1860 Eloise 1[notes 1] September 23 1975
Unnamed 1 July 30 1870 Frederic 3 September 13 1979
Unnamed 1[notes 1] September 10 1882 Elena 3 September 2 1985
Unnamed 2 October 3 1893 Opal 1[notes 1] October 4 1995
Unnamed 1 August 15 1901 Danny 1 July 19 1997
Unnamed 2 September 27 1906 Ivan 3 September 16 2004
Unnamed 1 September 14 1912 Dennis 1[notes 1] July 10 2005
Unnamed 2 July 5 1916 Katrina 1 August 29 2005
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT[4]

Connecticut

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 September 16 1858 Carol 3 August 31 1954
Unnamed 1 September 8 1869 Donna 1 September 12 1960
Unnamed 1 August 24 1893 Agnes 1 June 22 1972
Unnamed 1 October 10 1894 Gloria 2 September 27 1985
Unnamed 3 September 21 1938 Bob 2 August 19 1991
Unnamed 2 September 15 1944
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Delaware

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 October 23 1878
Unnamed 1 September 16 1903
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Florida

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 3 August 23 1851 Unnamed 1 October 21 1924
Unnamed 1 August 26 1852 Unnamed 2 July 27 1926
Unnamed 1 September 12 1852 Unnamed 4 September 18 1926
Unnamed 2 October 9 1852 Unnamed 1[notes 2] October 21 1926
Unnamed 1 September 8 1854 Unnamed 2 August 8 1928
Unnamed 2 August 31 1856 Unnamed 4 September 17 1928
Unnamed 1 September 16 1859 Unnamed 3 September 28 1929
Unnamed 1 October 28 1859 Unnamed 1 September 1 1932
Unnamed 1[notes 2] August 16 1861 Unnamed 1 July 30 1933
Unnamed 2 October 23 1865 Unnamed 3 September 4 1933
Unnamed 1 October 6 1867 “Labor Day” 5 September 3 1935
Unnamed 1[notes 2] October 9 1870 Unnamed 2 November 4 1935
Unnamed 1 October 20 1870 Unnamed 2 July 31 1936
Unnamed 3 August 16 1871 Unnamed 1 August 11 1939
Unnamed 2 August 25 1871 Unnamed 2 October 6 1941
Unnamed 1 September 6 1871 Unnamed 3 October 19 1944
Unnamed 1 September 19 1873 Unnamed 1 June 24 1945
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 Unnamed 3 September 15 1945
Unnamed 1 September 28 1874 Unnamed 1 October 8 1946
Unnamed 2 October 20 1876 Unnamed 4 September 17 1947
Unnamed 1 September 19 1877 Unnamed 1 October 11 1947
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 Unnamed 4 September 21 1948
Unnamed 2 September 10 1878 Unnamed 2 October 5 1948
Unnamed 2 August 29 1880 Unnamed 4 August 26 1949
Unnamed 1 October 8 1880 Easy 3 September 5 1950
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 King 4 October 18 1950
Unnamed 1 October 11 1882 Florence 1 September 26 1953
Unnamed 1 August 24 1885 Hazel 1 October 9 1953
Unnamed 2 June 21 1886 Flossy 1 September 24 1956
Unnamed 2 June 30 1886 Donna 4 September 10 1960
Unnamed 1 July 18 1886 Cleo 2 August 27 1964
Unnamed 1 July 27 1887 Dora 2 September 10 1964
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 Isbell 2 October 14 1964
Unnamed 2 October 11 1888 Betsy 3 September 8 1965
Unnamed 1 August 24 1891 Alma 2 June 9 1966
Unnamed 1 August 27 1893 Inez 1 October 8 1966
Unnamed 2 September 25 1894 Gladys 2 October 19 1968
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 Agnes 1 June 19 1972
Unnamed 2 July 7 1896 Eloise 3 September 23 1975
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 David 2 September 3 1979
Unnamed 1 August 3 1898 Elena 3 September 1 1985
Unnamed 2 October 2 1898 Kate 2 November 21 1985
Unnamed 2 August 1 1899 Floyd 1 October 12 1987
Unnamed 1 August 11 1903 Andrew 5 August 24 1992
Unnamed 1 October 17 1904 Erin 2 August 3 1995
Unnamed 1 June 16 1906 Opal 3 October 4 1995
Unnamed 2 September 27 1906 Earl 1 September 3 1998
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 Georges 2 September 25 1998
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 Irene 1 October 15 1999
Unnamed 2 October 18 1910 Charley 4 August 13 2004
Unnamed 1 August 11 1911 Frances 2 September 5 2004
Unnamed 1 September 14 1912 Ivan 3 September 16 2004
Unnamed 1 August 1 1915 Jeanne 3 September 26 2004
Unnamed 1 September 4 1915 Dennis 3 July 10 2005
Unnamed 2 July 5 1916 Katrina 1 August 25 2005
Unnamed 2 October 18 1916 Rita 1[notes 2] September 20 2005
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 Wilma 3 October 24 2005
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 Hermine 1 September 2 2016
Unnamed 3 October 25 1921 Matthew 2[notes 2] October 7 2016
Unnamed 1 September 15 1924
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Georgia

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1[notes 1] August 24 1851 Unnamed 2 September 29 1896
Unnamed 1[notes 1] October 10 1852 Unnamed 1 August 31 1898
Unnamed 1 October 21 1853 Unnamed 4 October 2 1898
Unnamed 3 September 8 1854 Unnamed 1 August 28 1911
Unnamed 1[notes 1] August 31 1856 Unnamed 1 September 18 1928
Unnamed 1[notes 1] October 3 1877 “Labor Day” 1[notes 1] September 5 1935
Unnamed 1 September 11 1878 Unnamed 1 August 11 1940
Unnamed 2 August 28 1881 Unnamed 2 October 15 1947
Unnamed 1 August 25 1885 Unnamed 1 August 27 1949
Unnamed 1[notes 1] June 21 1886 David 2 September 4 1979
Unnamed 1[notes 1] June 30 1886 Kate 1[notes 1] November 22 1985
Unnamed 3 August 28 1893 Matthew 1[notes 2] October 8 2016
Unnamed 1[notes 1] October 9 1894
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT[4]

Louisiana

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 2 August 25 1852 Unnamed 3 August 26 1926
Unnamed 3 September 16 1855 Unnamed 2 June 16 1934
Unnamed 4 August 11 1856 Unnamed 1 August 15 1938
Unnamed 3 August 11 1860 Unnamed 2 August 7 1940
Unnamed 2 September 15 1860 Unnamed 2 September 19 1947
Unnamed 2 October 2 1860 Unnamed 1 September 4 1948
Unnamed 2 September 13 1865 Flossy 2 September 24 1956
Unnamed 2 October 4 1867 Audrey 3 June 27 1957
Unnamed 1 September 5 1869 Ethel 1 September 15 1964
Unnamed 1 September 18 1877 Hilda 3 October 3 1964
Unnamed 2 August 23 1879 Betsy 3 September 10 1965
Unnamed 3 September 1 1879 Camille 5 August 17 1969
Unnamed 2 June 14 1886 Edith 2 September 16 1971
Unnamed 3 October 12 1886 Carmen 3 September 8 1974
Unnamed 1 October 19 1887 Babe 1 September 5 1977
Unnamed 2 August 19 1888 Bob 1 September 11 1979
Unnamed 1 September 23 1889 Danny 1 August 15 1985
Unnamed 2 September 7 1893 Juan 1 October 28 1985
Unnamed 4 October 2 1893 Florence 1 September 10 1988
Unnamed 1 September 12 1897 Andrew 3 August 26 1992
Unnamed 1 August 14 1901 Danny 1 July 18 1997
Unnamed 1 September 27 1906 Lili 1 October 3 2002
Unnamed 3 September 20 1909 Cindy 1 July 6 2005
Unnamed 1 August 17 1915 Katrina 3 August 29 2005
Unnamed 3 September 29 1915 Rita 3 September 24 2005
Unnamed 2 September 29 1917 Humberto 1 September 13 2007
Unnamed 3 August 7 1918 Gustav 2 September 1 2008
Unnamed 2 September 21
Unnamed 1 October 16 1923 Isaac 1 August 28 2012
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT[4]

Maine

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 2 October 4 1869
Gerda 1 September 10 1969
Gloria 1 September 27 1985
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Maryland

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 October 23 1878
Unnamed 1 August 23 1933
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Massachusetts

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 September 16 1858 Unnamed 2 September 21 1938
Unnamed 3 September 8 1869 Unnamed 1 September 15 1944
Unnamed 1 October 4 1869 Carol 2 August 31 1954
Unnamed 1 August 19 1879 Edna 2 September 11 1954
Unnamed 1 September 10 1896 Donna 1 September 12 1960
Unnamed 1 August 26 1924 Bob 2 August 19 1991
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Mississippi

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 3 August 26 1852 Unnamed 3 July 6 1916
Unnamed 3 August 16 1855 Unnamed 1 October 16 1923
Unnamed 3 August 12 1860 Unnamed 1 September 21 1926
Unnamed 2 September 15 1860 Unnamed 2 September 19 1947
Unnamed 1[notes 1] August 20 1888 Ethel 1 September 15 1960
Unnamed 2 October 2 1893 Camille 5 August 18 1969
Unnamed 1 August 15 1901 Frederic 3 September 13 1979
Unnamed 2 September 27 1906 Elena 3 September 2 1985
Unnamed 2 September 21 1909 Georges 2 September 29 1998
Unnamed 2 September 29 1915 Katrina 3 August 29 2005
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

New Hampshire

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Gloria 2 September 27 1985
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

New Jersey

Although Hurricane Sandy struck the state in October 2012 and produced hurricane-force winds, it became an extratropical cyclone before landfall or producing any hurricane-strength winds.[5]

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1[notes 2] October 23 1878
Unnamed 1 September 16 1903
Unnamed 1[notes 2] September 8 1934
Unnamed 1[notes 2] September 14 1944
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

New York

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 September 16 1858 Edna 1 September 11 1954
Unnamed 1 September 8 1869 Donna 2 September 12 1960
Unnamed 1 August 24 1893 Agnes 1 June 22 1972
Unnamed 1 October 10 1894 Belle 1 August 10 1976
Unnamed 1 September 8 1934 Gloria 3 September 27 1985
Unnamed 3 September 21 1938 Bob 2 August 19 1991
Unnamed 2 September 15 1944 Sandy 1[notes 3] October 29 2012
Carol 3 August 31 1954
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

North Carolina

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 September 13 1857 Unnamed 2[notes 2] September 14 1944
Unnamed 1 September 27 1861 Unnamed 1[notes 2] August 24 1949
Unnamed 1 November 2 1861 Barbara 1 August 14 1953
Unnamed 1 September 24 1874 Carol 1[notes 2] August 31 1954
Unnamed 1 September 17 1876 Edna 1[notes 2] September 11 1954
Unnamed 2 October 23 1878 Hazel 4 October 15 1954
Unnamed 3 August 18 1879 Connie 2 August 12 1955
Unnamed 1 September 9 1880 Ione 2 September 19 1955
Unnamed 2 September 9 1881 Helene 3[notes 2] September 27 1958
Unnamed 2 September 11 1883 Donna 2 September 12 1960
Unnamed 2 September 25 1885 Ginger 1 September 30 1971
Unnamed 1[notes 2] August 20 1887 Diana 2 September 13 1984
Unnamed 1[notes 1] August 28 1893 Gloria 3 September 27 1985
Unnamed 1 October 13 1893 Charley 1 August 17 1986
Unnamed 1[notes 1] September 29 1896 Hugo 1[notes 1] September 22 1989
Unnamed 3 August 18 1899 Emily 3[notes 2] August 31 1993
Unnamed 2 October 31 1899 Bertha 2 July 12 1996
Unnamed 1 July 11 1901 Fran 3 September 6 1996
Unnamed 1 September 17 1906 Bonnie 2 August 27 1998
Unnamed 1 July 31 1908 Floyd 2 September 16 1999
Unnamed 1 September 3 1913 Irene 2[notes 2] October 18 1999
Unnamed 1 August 24 1918 Isabel 2 September 18 2003
Unnamed 1[notes 2] August 26 1924 Alex 1[notes 2] August 3 2004
Unnamed 1 August 23 1933 Charley 1 August 14 2004
Unnamed 2[notes 2] September 16 1933 Ophelia 1[notes 2] September 14 2005
Unnamed 1[notes 2] September 9 1934 Irene 1 August 27 2011
Unnamed 1 September 18 1936 Arthur 2 July 4 2014
Unnamed 1 August 1 1944 Matthew 1[notes 2] October 8 2016
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT[4]

Pennsylvania

Though not directly bordering the Atlantic Ocean, the Gale of 1878 produced hurricane-force winds in the state, the only tropical cyclone on record to do so.[1] Furthermore, Hurricane Agnes (1972) had a severe impact on the state. Although it had been only a Category 1 storm, and had weakened to a tropical depression by the time it reached Pennsylvania, Hurricane Agnes nevertheless caused severe flooding, as well as enormous economic damage.

Rhode Island

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 September 16 1858 Unnamed 2 September 15 1944
Unnamed 1 September 8 1869 Carol 3 August 31 1954
Unnamed 1 October 10 1894 Edna 1 September 11 1954
Unnamed 1 September 10 1896 Donna 1 September 12 1960
Unnamed 3 September 21 1938 Bob 2 August 19 1991
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

South Carolina

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 2 September 8 1854 Unnamed 1 October 8 1913
Unnamed 1 June 22 1867 Unnamed 2 July 14 1916
Unnamed 1 September 28 1874 Unnamed 1 September 18 1928
Unnamed 1 September 12 1878 Unnamed 2 August 11 1940
Unnamed 1 August 28 1881 Unnamed 2 October 15 1947
Unnamed 1 September 11 1883 Able 2 August 31 1952
Unnamed 3 August 25 1885 Hazel 4 October 15 1954
Unnamed 3 August 28 1893 Cindy 1 July 9 1959
Unnamed 3 October 13 1893 Gracie 4 September 29 1959
Unnamed 1 September 27 1894 David 2 September 4 1979
Unnamed 1 September 29 1896 Bob 1 July 25 1985
Unnamed 1 August 31 1898 Hugo 4 September 22 1989
Unnamed 2 October 31 1899 Charley 1 August 14 2004
Unnamed 1 September 14 1904 Gaston 1 August 29 2004
Unnamed 1 September 17 1906 Matthew 1 October 8 2016
Unnamed 2 August 28 1911
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Texas

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 June 25 1851 Unnamed 4 August 14 1932
Unnamed 1 June 26 1854 Unnamed 2[notes 4] August 7 1933
Unnamed 2 September 18 1854 Unnamed 3 September 5 1933
Unnamed 1 September 13 1865 Unnamed 2 July 25 1934
Unnamed 2 July 15 1866 Unnamed 1 June 27 1936
Unnamed 1 October 2 1867 Unnamed 2 August 8 1940
Unnamed 2 August 17 1869 Unnamed 3 September 23 1941
Unnamed 3 September 16 1875 Unnamed 1 August 21 1942
Unnamed 2 August 23 1879 Unnamed 3 August 30 1942
Unnamed 3[notes 4] August 13 1880 Unnamed 2 July 27 1943
Unnamed 2 June 14 1886 Unnamed 2 August 27 1945
Unnamed 4 August 20 1886 Unnamed 1 August 24 1947
Unnamed 1[notes 4] September 23 1886 Unnamed 2 October 4 1949
Unnamed 2 October 12 1886 Audrey 2 June 27 1957
Unnamed 2 September 21 1887 Debra 1 July 25 1959
Unnamed 1 June 17 1888 Carla 4 September 11 1961
Unnamed 1 July 5 1891 Cindy 1 September 17 1963
Unnamed 1[notes 4] August 30 1895 Beulah 3 September 20 1967
Unnamed 1 September 13 1897 Celia 3 August 3 1970
Unnamed 4 September 9 1900 Fern 1 September 10 1971
Unnamed 2 June 29 1909 Allen 3 August 10 1980
Unnamed 3 July 21 1909 Alicia 3 August 18 1983
Unnamed 1[notes 4] August 27 1909 Bonnie 1 June 28 1986
Unnamed 2 September 14 1910 Chantal 1 August 1 1989
Unnamed 2 October 16 1912 Jerry 1 October 16 1989
Unnamed 1 June 27 1913 Bret 3 August 23 1999
Unnamed 4 August 17 1915 Claudette 1 July 15 2003
Unnamed 4 August 18 1916 Rita 2 September 24 2005
Unnamed 1 August 7 1918 Humberto 1 September 13 2007
Unnamed 3 September 14 1919 Dolly 1 July 23 2008
Unnamed 1 June 22 1921 Ike 2 September 13 2008
Unnamed 1 June 28 1929
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

Virginia

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Unnamed 1 September 17 1876 Unnamed 1[notes 2] September 16 1933
Unnamed 1 October 23 1878 Unnamed 1 September 18 1936
Unnamed 2 August 18 1879 Unnamed 2[notes 2] September 14 1944
Unnamed 1[notes 1] October 13 1893 Connie 1 August 12 1955
Unnamed 1 September 29 1894 Donna 1[notes 2] September 12 1960
Unnamed 1[notes 1] September 30 1896 Isabel 1 September 18 2003
Unnamed 1 August 23 1933
Source: Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012[1]

States bordering the Pacific Ocean

Southwestern United States

The 1858 San Diego Hurricane is the only Pacific tropical cyclone known to have produced hurricane-force winds in California; it affected San Diego on October 2, 1858, though its center remained just offshore. In the 20th century, only four tropical cyclones produced tropical storm force winds in the southwestern United States: a tropical storm in September 1939 in California, Hurricane Joanne in October 1972 in Arizona, Hurricane Kathleen in September 1976 in Arizona and California, and Hurricane Nora in September 1997 in Arizona.[6]

Hawaii

Name Saffir-Simpson
Category
Date of closest approach Year
Dot 1 August 7 1959
Iwa 1 November 24 1982
Iniki 4 September 11 1992
Source: 1959 Central Pacific Hurricane Season[7]
1982 Central Pacific Hurricane Season[8]
1992 Central Pacific Hurricane Season[9]

Climatological statistics

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Hurricane conditions in this state were limited to inland areas.
  2. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z This hurricane did not made landfall, but produced hurricane conditions over the state indicated.
  3. Jump up^ This storm became extratropical before landfall, but produced hurricane conditions over the state indicated while still a tropical cyclone.
  4. Jump up to:a b c d e This hurricane made landfall in Mexico but produced hurricane conditions in Texas.

References

  1. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Hurricane Research Division (2012). “Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States: 1851-2012”. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Archived from the original on 2014-02-10. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
  2. Jump up to:a b c Eric S. Blake; Edward N. Rappaport; Christopher W. Landsea (2007). “The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones From 1851 to 2006” (PDF). National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
  3. Jump up^ “Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005”. Journalist’s Resource.org.
  4. Jump up to:a b c d Hurricane Research Division (2008). “Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT”. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved 2008-03-21.
  5. Jump up^ Eric S. Blake; et al. (2013-02-12). Hurricane Sandy Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF) (Report). National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
  6. Jump up^ Michael Chenoweth & Chris Landsea (2004). “The San Diego Hurricane of October 2, 1858” (PDF). American Meteorological Society. Retrieved 2008-01-26.
  7. Jump up^ Central Pacific Hurricane Season. “1959 Central Pacific Hurricane Season”. Retrieved 2008-01-26.
  8. Jump up^ Central Pacific Hurricane Season. “1982 Central Pacific Hurricane Season”. Retrieved 2008-01-26.
  9. Jump up^ Central Pacific Hurricane Season. “1992 Central Pacific Hurricane Season”. Retrieved 2008-01-26.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes

List of natural disasters by death toll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

natural disaster is a sudden event that causes widespread destruction, lots of collateral damage or loss of life, brought about by forces other than the acts of human beings. A natural disaster might be caused by earthquakes, flooding, volcanic eruption, landslide, hurricanes etc. In order to be classified as a disaster, it will have profound environmental effect and/or human loss and frequently incurs financial loss.

Ten deadliest natural disasters

Rank Death toll (estimate) Event Location Date
1. 1,000,000–4,000,000*[1] 1931 China floods China July 1931
2. 900,000–2,000,000[2] 1887 Yellow River flood China September 1887
3. 830,000[3] 1556 Shaanxi earthquake China January 23, 1556
4. 300,000[4] 1839 India cyclone India November 26, 1839
4. 300,000[5] 1737 Calcutta cyclone India October 7, 1737
5. 280,000 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami Indian Ocean December 26, 2004
6. 273,400[6] 1920 Haiyuan earthquake China December 16, 1920
7. 250,000–500,000[1] 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) November 13, 1970
7. 250,000–300,000[7] 526 Antioch earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Turkey) May 526
8. 242,000–655,000 1976 Tangshan earthquake China July 28, 1976
9. 230,000 1138 Aleppo earthquake Zengid dynasty (now Syria) October 11, 1138
10. 229,000 Typhoon Nina—contributed to Banqiao Dam failure China August 7, 1975

* Estimate by Nova’s sources are close to 4 million and yet Encarta’s sources report as few as 1 million. Expert estimates report wide variance.

The list does not include several volcanic eruptions with uncertain death tolls resulting from collateral effects (crop failures, etc.), though these may have numbered in the millions; see List of volcanic eruptions by death toll.

The list does not include the man-made 1938 Yellow River flood, caused entirely by a deliberate man-made act (an act of war, destroying dikes).

An alternative listing is given by Peter Hough in his 2008 book Global Security.[8]

Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900

Rank Death toll (estimate) Event* Location Date
1. 1,000,000–4,000,000 1931 China floods China July 1931
2. 280,000 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami Indian Ocean December 26, 2004
3. 273,400 1920 Haiyuan earthquake China December 16, 1920
4. 250,000–500,000 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) November 1970
5. 242,000–655,000 1976 Tangshan earthquake China July 28, 1976
6. 229,000 Typhoon Nina—contributed to Banqiao Dam failure China August 7, 1975
7. 160,000[9] 2010 Haiti earthquake Haiti January 12, 2010
8. 145,000 1935 Yangtze river flood China 1935
9. 143,000 1923 Great Kanto earthquake Japan September 1, 1923
10. 138,866 1991 Bangladesh cyclone Bangladesh April 1991

This list does not include industrial or technological accidents, epidemics, or the 1938 Yellow River flood.

Lists of natural disasters by cause

Deadliest earthquakes

Rank Death toll (estimate) Event Location Date
1. 820,000–830,000 1556 Shaanxi earthquake China January 23, 1556
2. 280,000 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake Indonesia December 26, 2004
3. 242,769–700,000[10][11][12] 1976 Tangshan earthquake China July 28, 1976
4. 273,400[6] 1920 Haiyuan earthquake NingxiaChina December 16, 1920
5. 250,000–300,000[7] 526 Antioch earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Turkey) May 526
6. 260,000[13] 115 Antioch earthquake Roman Empire (now Turkey) December 13, 115
7. 230,000 1138 Aleppo earthquake Zengid dynasty (now Syria) October 11, 1138
8. 200,000[14] 1303 Hongdong earthquake Mongol Empire (now China) September 17, 1303
8. 200,000 856 Damghan earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Iran) December 22, 856
8. 200,000[15] 1780 Tabriz earthquake Iran January 8, 1780
9. 170,000[16] 896 Udaipur earthquake India 896
10. 160,000[9] 2010 Haiti earthquake Haiti January 12, 2010
11. 150,000 893 Ardabil earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Iran) March 23, 893
12. 142,807[17][18] 1923 Great Kanto earthquake Japan September 1, 1923
13. 130,000[19] 533 Aleppo earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Syria) November 29, 533
14. 123,000[1] 1908 Messina earthquake Italy December 28, 1908
15. 110,000 1948 Ashgabat earthquake Turkmen SSRSoviet Union (now Turkmenistan) October 5, 1948
16. 100,000 1290 Chihli earthquake Mongol Empire (now China) September 27, 1290
16. 100,000[20] 2005 Kashmir earthquake Pakistan (Azad Kashmir) October 8, 2005
17. 87,587[21][22] 2008 Sichuan earthquake China May 12, 2008
18. 80,000[23] 1721 Tabriz earthquake Iran April 26, 1721
18. 80,000[24] 458 Antioch earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Turkey) September 458
18. 80,000 1667 Shamakhi earthquake Safavid dynasty (now Azerbaijan) November 1667
18. 80,000 1854 Great Nankaidō earthquake Japan November 1854
18. 80,000[25][26] 1169 Aleppo earthquake Zengid dynasty (now Syria) 1169
19. 77,000 1727 Tabriz earthquake Iran November 18, 1727
20. 73,000[27] 1718 Gansu earthquake Qing Empire (now China) June 19, 1718
21. 70,000 1970 Ancash earthquake Peru May 31, 1970[28]
21. 70,000[29] 1033 Ramala earthquake Fatimid Caliphate (now West Bank) December 10, 1033
21. 70,000[30] 847 Damascus earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Syria) 847
21. 70,000[31] 1868 Ecuador earthquakes Ecuador August 15, 1868 and August 16, 1868
22. 60,000[32] 587 Antioch earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Turkey) September 30, 587
22. 60,000[33] 1101 Khorasan earthquake Great Seljuq Empire (now Iran) 1101
22. 60,000 1268 Cilicia earthquake Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (now Turkey) 1268
22. 60,000 1693 Sicily earthquake Kingdom of Sicily (now Italy) January 11, 1693
22. 60,000 1935 Quetta earthquake India (now part of Pakistan) May 31, 1935
23. 50,000[34] 844 Damascus earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Syria) September 18, 844
23. 50,000[35] 1042 Tabriz earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Iran) November 4, 1042
23. 50,000 1783 Calabrian earthquakes Kingdom of Naples (now Italy) 1783
23. 50,000 1990 Manjil–Rudbar earthquake Iran June 21, 1990
24. 40,000–50,000[36] 1755 Lisbon earthquake Portugal November 1, 1755
25. 45,000[37] 850 Iran earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Iran) July 15, 850
25. 45,000[38] 856 Corinth earthquake Byzantine Empire (now Greece) November 856
25. 45,000[39][40] 856 Tunisia earthquake Abbasid Caliphate (now Tunisia) December 3, 856
26. 42,571[41] 1668 Shandong earthquake Qing Empire (now China) July 25, 1668
27. 40,900 1927 Gulang earthquake GansuChina May 22, 1927
28. 40,000[42] 342 Antioch earthquake Roman Empire (now Turkey) 342
28. 40,000[43] 662 Damghan earthquake Umayyad Caliphate (now Iran) April 26, 662
28. 40,000[44] 1455 Naples earthquake Crown of Aragon (now Italy) December 5, 1455
28. 40,000[45] 1754 Cairo earthquake Ottoman Empire (now Egypt) September 2, 1754
28. 40,000[46] 1755 Tabriz earthquake Iran June 7, 1755
28. 40,000 1797 Riobamba earthquake Spanish Empire (now Ecuador) February 4, 1797

Deadliest famines

Note: Some of these famines may be caused or partially caused by humans.

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 15,000,000–43,000,000 Great Chinese Famine China 1958–1961
2. 25,000,000[citation needed] Chinese Famine of 1907 China 1907
3. 13,000,000[47] Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–1879 China 1876–1879
4. 11,000,000 Doji bara famine or Skull famine India 1789–1792
5. 10,000,000 Bengal famine of 1770, incl. Bihar & Orissa India 1769–1771
6. 6,000,000+ Indian Famine British India 1896–1902
7. 7,500,000 Great European Famine Europe (all) 1315–1317
8. 7,000,000–10,000,000 Soviet famine of 1932–1933 (Holodomor in Ukraine) Soviet Union 1932–1934
9. 5,250,000 Indian Great Famine of 1876–78 India 1876–1878
10. 5,000,000 Chinese Famine of 1936 China 1936
10. 5,000,000 Russian famine of 1921 RussiaUkraine 1921–1922
11. 3,000,000 Chinese famine of 1928–1930 China 1928–1930
12. 2,000,000–3,000,000 Chinese Drought 1941 China 1942–1943
12. 2,000,000 Russian famine of 1601–1603 Russia (Muscovy) 1601–1603
12. 2,000,000 Deccan Famine of 1630–32 India 1630–1632
12. 2,000,000 Upper Doab famine of 1860–61 India 1860–1861
12. 2,000,000 French Famine France 1693–1694
12. 2,000,000 Great Persian Famine of 1870–71 Persia 1870–1871
13. 1,500,000–7,000,000 Bengal Famine of 1943 India 1943
14. 1,500,000 Great Irish Famine Ireland 1846–1849

Deadliest impact events

Note: Although there have been no scientifically verified cases of astronomical objects resulting in human fatalities, there have been several reported occurrences throughout human history. Consequently, the casualty figures for all events listed are considered unofficial.

Rank Death toll (unofficial) Location Date Notes
1. 10,000+ QingyangGansu, China 1490 1490 Ch’ing-yang event
2. Tens Changshou District, China 1639 10 homes destroyed[48][49]
3. 10+ China 616 AD a large shooting star fell onto the rebel Lu Ming-Yueh’s camp, destroying a wall-attacking tower[49]
4. 2 Malacca ship, Indian Ocean 1648 2 sailors killed on board a ship[49]
4. 2 Podkamennaya Tunguska RiverSiberiaRussian Empire 1908 Tunguska event[48]
5. 1 CremonaLombardy, Italy 1511 monk and several animals were killed by stones weighing up to 50 kg[49]
5. 1 Milan, Italy 1633 or 1664 a monk died after being struck on the thigh by a meteorite[49]
5. 1 Gascony, France 1790 a farmer was reportedly struck and killed by a meteorite[49]
5. 1 Oriang, Malwate, India 1825 [48][50]
5. 1 Chin-kuei Shan, China 1874 cottage was crushed by a meteorite, killing a child[48][51]
5. 1 Newtown, Indiana, United States 1879 a man was killed in bed by a meteorite[48]
5. 1 Dun-le-Poëlier, France 1879 a farmer was killed by a meteorite[48]
5. 1 Zvezvan, Yugoslavia 1929 a meteorite hit a bridal party[48]

Deadliest limnic eruptions

(Only 2 recorded cases.)

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 1,744 Lake Nyos Cameroon 1986
2. 37 Lake Monoun Cameroon 1984

Ten deadliest avalanches

Rank Death toll (estimate) Event Location Date
1. 20,000 1970 Huascarán avalanche; triggered by the 1970 Ancash earthquake[52] Peru 1970
2. 10,000 Tyrolean Alps Avalanche[53][54] Italy 1916
3. 4,000 1962 Huascarán avalanche[52] Peru 1962
4. 310 2015 Afghanistan avalanches Afghanistan 2015
5. 265 Winter of Terror AustriaSwitzerland 1951
6. 201 2012 Afghanistan avalanches Afghanistan 2012
7. 172 2010 Salang avalanches Afghanistan 2010
8. 140 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche Pakistan 2012
9. 125 Kolka-Karmadon rock ice slide Russia 2002
10. 107 Saint-Martin (Hautes-Pyrénées) France 1600

Ten deadliest blizzards

Rank Death toll (estimate) Event Location Date
1. 4,000 1972 Iran blizzard Iran 1972
2. 3,000 Carolean Death March Sweden/Norway 1719
3. 926 2008 Afghanistan blizzard Afghanistan 2008
4. 400 Great Blizzard of 1888 United States 1888
5. 353 Great Appalachian Storm of 1950 United States 1950
6. 318 1993 Storm of the Century United States 1993
7. 250 Great Lakes Storm of 1913 United States and Canada (Great Lakes region) 1913
8. 235 Schoolhouse Blizzard United States 1888
9. 199 Hakko-da Mountains incident Japan 1902
10. 154 1940 Armistice Day Blizzard United States 1940
10. 154 North American blizzard of 1996 United States 1996

Ten deadliest floods / landslides

Note: Some of these floods and landslides may be partially caused by humans – for example, by failure of damsleveesseawalls or retaining walls.

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 1,000,000–4,000,000[55] 1931 China floods China 1931
2. 900,000–2,000,000 1887 Yellow River (Huang He) flood China 1887
3. 229,000[56] Failure of 62 dams, the largest of which was Banqiao Dam, result of Typhoon Nina. China 1975
4. 145,000 1935 Yangtze river flood China 1935
5. more than 100,000 St. Felix’s Flood, storm surge Netherlands 1530
6. 100,000 Hanoi and Red River Delta flood North Vietnam 1971
7. up to 100,000[citation needed] 1911 Yangtze River flood China 1911
8. 50,000–80,000 St. Lucia’s flood, storm surge Netherlands 1287
9. 60,000 North Sea flood, storm surge Netherlands 1212
10. 36,000 St. Marcellus flood, storm surge Netherlands 1219

The list does not include the man-made 1938 Yellow River flood caused entirely by a deliberate man-made act (an act of war, destroying dikes).

Ten deadliest heat waves

Measuring the number of deaths caused by a heat wave requires complicated statistical analysis, since heat waves tend to cause large numbers of deaths among people weakened by other conditions. As a result, the number of deaths is only known with any accuracy for heat waves in the modern era in countries with developed healthcare systems.

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 70,000 2003 European heat wave Europe 2003
2. 56,000 2010 Russian heat wave Russia 2010
3. 9,500 1901 eastern United States heat wave United States 1901
4. 5,000–10,000 1988 United States heat wave United States 1988
5. 3,418 2006 European heat wave Europe 2006[57]
6. 2,541 1998 India heat wave India 1998[57]
7. 2,500 2015 Indian heat wave India 2015
7. 2,500 2015 Pakistan heat wave Pakistan 2015
8. 1,700–5,000 1980 United States heat wave United States 1980
9. 1,718 2010 Japanese heat wave Japan 2010[58]
10. 1,693 1936 North American heat wave North America 1936[57]

Ten deadliest storms (non-cyclones)

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 10,000–30,000 Vargas tragedy Venezuela 1999
2. 903 Rio de Janeiro floods and mudslides Brazil 2011
3. 500 Lofoten, Heavy storm Norway 1849
4. 329 Mocoa tragedy Colombia 2017
5. 246 1888 Moradabad hailstorm India 1888
6. 242 1996 Amarnath Yatra tragedy India 1996
7. 210 Trøndelag, storm (“Follastormen”) Norway 1625
8. 189 Eyemouth, Scotland, storm (“Black Friday“) United Kingdom 1881
9. 156 1972 Hong Kong rainstorm disasters Hong Kong 1972
10. 140 Trøndelag, storm (“Titran disaster”) Norway 1899

Ten deadliest tornadoes

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 1,300 The Daulatpur-Salturia Tornado ManikganjBangladesh 1989
2. 695 The Tri-State Tornado United States (MissouriIllinoisIndiana) 1925
3. 681 1973 Dhaka Tornado Bangladesh 1973
4. 660 1969 East Pakistan Tornado East PakistanPakistan (now Bangladesh) 1969
5. 600 The Valletta, Malta Tornado Malta 1551 or 1556
6. 500 The Sicily Tornadoes SicilyTwo Sicilies (now Italy) 1851
6. 500 The Narail-Magura Tornado JessoreEast PakistanPakistan (now Bangladesh) 1964
6. 500 The Madaripur-Shibchar Tornado Bangladesh 1977
7. 400 The Ivanovo-Yaroslavl, Russia, Tornado Soviet Union (now Russia) 1984
8. 317 The Great Natchez Tornado United States (MississippiLouisiana) 1840
9. 300 Cooch, Behar Tornado India, Bangladesh 1963
9. 300 Bhakua-Haripur Tornado Bangladesh 1972
10. 263 Comilla Tornado Bangladesh 1969

Ten deadliest tropical cyclones

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 375,000 (250,000–500,000) 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) November 13, 1970
2. 300,000[5] 1737 Calcutta cyclone India October 7, 1737
2. 300,000[4] 1839 India Cyclone India November 25, 1839
3. 229,000 Super Typhoon Nina—contributed to Banqiao Dam failure China August 7, 1975
4. 200,000[59] Great Backerganj Cyclone of 1876 India (now Bangladesh) October 30, 1876
5. 150,000 (30,000 to 300,000)[60] 1881 Haiphong Typhoon Vietnam October 8, 1881
6. 138,866 1991 Bangladesh cyclone Bangladesh April 29, 1991
7. 138,366 Cyclone Nargis Myanmar May 2, 2008
8. 100,000[61] July 1780 Typhoon Philippines 1780
8. 100,000[62] 1882 Bombay cyclone India 1882
9. 80,000[63] 1874 Bengal cyclone India October 1874
10. 60,000[64] 1922 Swatow Typhoon China August 1922

Ten deadliest tsunamis

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 300,000–500,000 (est.) 365 Crete earthquake Greece July 21, 365
2. 280,000 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami Indian Ocean December 26, 2004
3. 123,000[1] 1908 Messina earthquake Italy December 28, 1908
4. 36,417–120,000 1883 eruption of Krakatoa Indonesia August 26, 1883
5. 40,000–50,000[36] 1755 Lisbon earthquake Portugal November 1, 1755
6. 30,000-100,000 (est.) Minoan Eruption Greece 2nd Millennium BC
7. 31,000 1498 Meiō Nankaidō earthquake Japan September 20, 1498
8. 30,000 1707 Hōei earthquake Japan October 28, 1707
9. 27,122[65] 1896 Sanriku earthquake Japan June 15, 1896
10. 25,674 1868 Arica earthquake Chile August 13, 1868

A 1782 possible tsunami causing about 40,000 deaths in the Taiwan Strait area may have been of “meteorological” origin (a cyclone)[66]

Ten deadliest volcanic eruptions

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 5,000,000~[67][better source needed] about 1 million in France,[68]
many in the rest of northern Europe and in Egypt,
9,350 people in Iceland, about 25% of the island’s population.[67]
Laki (Grímsvötn) Iceland June 8, 1783
2. 2,000,000 max, or one-third of the population of Russia;
(see also Russian famine of 1601–1603)
Huaynaputina Peru February 19, 1600
3. 71,000+[69] 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora (see also Year Without a Summer) Indonesia April 10, 1815
4. 36,000+[70] 1883 eruption of Krakatoa Indonesia August 26, 1883
5. 30,000[71] Mount Pelée Martinique May 7, 1902
6. 23,000[72] Armero tragedy Colombia November 13, 1985
7. 15,000[73] 1792 Unzen earthquake and tsunami Japan May 21, 1792
8. 10,000 Mount Kelud Indonesia 1586
9. 6,000[74] Santa Maria Guatemala October 24, 1902
10. 5,000[75] Mount Kelud Indonesia May 19, 1919

Ten deadliest wildfires / bushfires

Rank Death toll Event Location Date
1. 1,200–2,500 Peshtigo FireWisconsin United States October 8, 1871
2. 1,200 Kursha-2 Fire Soviet Union August 3, 1936
3. 453 Cloquet FireMinnesota United States October 12, 1918
4. 418 Great Hinckley FireMinnesota United States September 1, 1894
5. 282 Thumb FireMichigan United States September 5, 1881
6. 273 Matheson FireOntario Canada July 29, 1916
7. 240 Sumatra and Kalimantan Fires Indonesia 1997
8. 213 Black Dragon Fire China May 1, 1987
9. 173 Black Saturday bushfires Australia February 7, 2009
10. 160 Miramichi Fire Canada October 1825

See also

Other lists organized by death toll

References

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-951

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 748, August 21, 2017, Story 1: Eclipse Totality — Moon Shadow — Here Comes The Sun — The Primary Cause of Climate Change — Videos — Story 2: Bannon Breitbart Banishment– Interventionist War Mongering Generals and Political Establishment Winning — Trump Just Another Big Government Liberal Democrat Presidents (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson) — Videos –Story 3: The Democrat Party of Slavery, Segregation, Klu Klux Klan, and White Supremacy Rewrites History By Tearing Down Confederate Soldier Statues That They Put Up — Admit It Democrats Are Racists That Play Race Cards — Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Videos — Story 4: The Radical Islamic Terrorists Killed and Captured –13 Killed and Injured 100 in Barcelona Thursday — Videos

Posted on August 21, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Business, Climate Change, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Genocide, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Law, Legal Immigration, Lying, Medicare, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Science, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Security, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939,  August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902, May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901, May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900, May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899, May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898, May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897, May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896, May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895, May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894, May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893, May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892, May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891, May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890, May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889, May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888, May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887, May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886, May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885, May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884, May 1, 2017

Image result for total eclipseImage result for branco cartoon on resignation of steve bannon

Story 1: Eclipse Totality — Moon Shadow — Here Comes The Sun — The Primary Cause of Climate Change —

Cat Stevens – Moon Shadow (1970)

 

 

Cat Stevens – Moonshadow Lyrics

[Chorus:]
Oh, I’m bein’ followed by a moonshadow, moon shadow, moonshadow—
Leapin and hoppin’ on a moonshadow, moonshadow, moonshadow—And if I ever lose my hands, lose my plough, lose my land,
Oh if I ever lose my hands, Oh if I won’t have to work no more.And if I ever lose my eyes, if my colours all run dry,
Yes if I ever lose my eyes, Oh if I won’t have to cry no more.[Chorus]And if I ever lose my legs, I won’t moan, and I won’t beg,
Yes if I ever lose my legs, Oh if I won’t have to walk no more.And if I ever lose my mouth, all my teeth, north and south,
Yes if I ever lose my mouth, Oh if I won’t have to talk…Did it take long to find me? I asked the faithful light.
Did it take long to find me? And are you gonna stay the night?[Chorus]
Moonshadow, moonshadow, moonshadow, moonshadow.
Songwriters: YUSUF ISLAM, CAT STEVENS

Why a total solar eclipse is such a big deal

21 August: The Total Darkness: Everything to Know about The Great American Eclipse

2017 eclipse: First moment of totality

Total Eclipse Darkens Wyoming

Solar Eclipse 2017 Full 360º VR Experience In Casper, Wyoming | 360 Video | TIME

Trump Watches Eclipse From White House

Kern Astronomical Society explains why the solar eclipse is such a huge deal

Here Comes The Sun – The Beatles Tribute

Here Comes the Sun: A Tribute to George Harrison by Paul Simon, Crosby and Grahm Nash

Beatles – Here Comes The Sun Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Here comes the sun (doo doo doo doo)
Here comes the sun, and I say
It’s all right

Little darling, it’s been a long cold lonely winter
Little darling, it feels like years since it’s been here
Here comes the sun
Here comes the sun, and I say
It’s all right

Little darling, the smiles returning to the faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it’s been here
Here comes the sun
Here comes the sun, and I say
It’s all right

Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes

Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darling, it seems like years since it’s been clear
Here comes the sun
Here comes the sun, and I say
It’s all right

 

Read more: Beatles – Here Comes The Sun Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Story 2: Bannon Breitbart Banishment– Interventionist War Mongering Generals and Political Establishment Winning — Trump Just Another Big Government Liberal Democrat Presidents (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson) — Videos —

“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over. The Republican establishment has no interest in Trump’s success. They’re not populists, they’re not nationalists, they had no interest in his programme. Zero. They’re going to try to moderate him.”

~ Stephen Bannon

 

Image result for steve bannon and donald j. trump

Sean Hannity – on Bannon Resignation With Guests

The Story with Martha MacCallum – August 18, 2017

Trump FIRES Steve Bannon!!!

Tucker Carlson Reacts To Steve Bannon Getting Fired

Tucker Doesn’t Want More Troops In Afghanistan

Steve Bannon resigns as President Donald Trump’s chief strategist: Special Report

Steve Bannon Accidentally Spills The Beans?

Roger Stone On Steve Bannon Getting Fired

Steve Bannon vows to ‘go to war’ for Trump agenda after sacking – BBC News

Bannon Speaks After Stepping Down

Newt Gingrich Reacts to Bannon’s White House Departure

Ann Coulter Reacts to Steve Bannon’s Firing

BREAKING NEWS TRUMP 8/18/17 STEVE BANNON FIRED, Trump fires Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist

Shepard Smith REACTS to the firing of steve bannon – Steve Bannon FIRED by President Trump

Ann Coulter on Trump: Today We Got Our Leader Back! | Alt Left Takedown (8-16-17)

Trump Fires Steve Bannon; Which Doesn’t Surprise Me Even Slightly (Here’s Why)

Bill O’Reilly: Reacts to Trump Charlottesville Backlash & Steve Bannon (8-18-17)

Bannon, backed by billionaire, prepares to go to war

Win McNamee / AP

Steve Bannon’s next moves will be all about the billionaire Mercer family. I’m told Bannon, who visited New York this week, met with Bob Mercer and together they will be a well-funded force on the outside.
  • Bannon has felt liberated since it became clear he was being pushed out, according to friends. He’s told associates he has a “killing machine” in Breitbart News, and it’s possible he returns to lead their editorial operation.
  • A source familiar with Breitbart’s operations told me they would go “thermonuclear” against “globalists”that Bannon and his friends believe are ruining the Trump administration, and by extension, America.
  • Watch for Breitbart’s Washington Editor Matt Boyle to be a central figure in this war — which has already begun — against White House officials like HR McMaster, Dina Powell, Gary Cohn, and Jared and Ivanka.

Steve Bannon’s next moves will be all about the billionaire Mercer family. I’m told Bannon, who visited New York this week, met with Bob Mercer and together they will be a well-funded force on the outside.

  • Bannon has felt liberated since it became clear he was being pushed out, according to friends. He’s told associates he has a “killing machine” in Breitbart News, and it’s possible he returns to lead their editorial operation.
  • A source familiar with Breitbart’s operations told me they would go “thermonuclear” against “globalists”that Bannon and his friends believe are ruining the Trump administration, and by extension, America.
  • Watch for Breitbart’s Washington Editor Matt Boyle to be a central figure in this war — which has already begun — against White House officials like HR McMaster, Dina Powell, Gary Cohn, and Jared and Ivanka.

https://www.axios.com/bannons-next-move-2474479917.html

Steve Bannon, the ousted White House chief strategist, is reportedly considering starting a television network which would allow him to “go nuclear” as he settles vendettas with moderate advisers in the White House and pressures President Donald Trump to pursue a populist agenda of economic nationalism.

Allies of Mr Bannon compared him to a “tiger freed from his cage,” suggesting things would get “ugly” as he targets the Republican establishment and what he calls “West Wing Democrats”.

The departure of Mr Bannon came amid one of Mr Trump’s worst weeks as president.

He and first lady Melania Trump decided not to participate in the annual Kennedy Center Honours event celebrating American culture after a backlash from those being honoured. The White House said the first couple were pulling out to “allow the honourees to celebrate without any political distraction”.

I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton – it was great! Thanks S

Meanwhile, a host of charities canceled annual fundraising events at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. They included the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the American  Cancer Society.

Mr Bannon’s possible TV network would be intended as a rival to Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch-owned channel which has been supportive of Mr Trump, but which Mr Bannon now regards as too moderate,  Axios reported.

Immediately after his departure on Friday he re-assumed control of Breitbart, the influential right-wing news website he steered before joining Mr Trump’s campaign last year. Mr Bannon said he was “going to war for Trump,” which appeared to mean the original hard line policies pursued during the campaign.

Mr Bannon’s new venture would probably be funded by Bob Mercer, the hedge fund billionaire and conservative mega-donor, who has previously backed both Breitbart and Mr Trump. Mr Mercer and Mr Bannon met last week to discus plans for after his White House exit. The following evening Mr Mercer had dinner with the president.

On the outsideMr Bannon will target a ring of presidential advisers sometimes known as the “globalists”. It includes Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, with whom Mr Bannon appeared to have lost a battle over putting more troops in Afghanistan.

Also in the firing line are Republican leaders in Congress such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republicans who Mr Bannon blames for stalling Mr Trump’s agenda, including funding for the border wall, and failing to overturn Obamacare.

Mr Bannon has few allies left within the White House promoting his agenda of economic nationalism. There was speculation that the few who remain, including senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, and deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka, could be purged by John Kelly, the new chief of staff who is seeking to bring order to the chaotic administration.

Mr Kelly’s authority over the White House was boosted by Mr Bannon’s departure. A triumvirate of military generals – Mr Kelly, Mr McMaster, and Defence Secretary James Mattis – now hold extraordinary sway within the administration.

Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign adviser and friend of Mr Bannon, said:  “It’s a tough pill to swallow because you have a Republican West Wing that’s filled with generals and Democrats. It would feel like the twilight zone.”

In a candid first interview after leaving, Mr Bannon told the Weekly Standard: “The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over. The Republican establishment has no interest in Trump’s success. They’re not populists, they’re not nationalists, they had no interest in his programme. Zero. They’re going to try to moderate him.”

Mr Bannon added: “I feel jacked up. I’ve got my hands back on my weapons. It’s Bannon the Barbarian. I am definitely going to crush the opposition. I built a f****** machine at Breitbart. We’re about to rev that machine up.”

A friend of Mr Bannon told The Atlantic: “Steve is now unchained. He’s going nuclear. You have no idea. This is gonna be really f****** bad.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-apos-nuclear-west-171613803.html

Story 3: The Democrat Party of Slavery, Segregation, Ku Klux Klan, and White Supremacy Rewrites History By Tearing Down Confederate Soldier Monument Statues  That They Put Up — Admit It —  Democrats Are Racists That Play Race Cards — Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Videos —

“Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

~George Santayana

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

Why Is ANTIFA Not Being Condemned?

The history of the racist Democrat party in under 12 minutes by Billy Whittle

Bill Whittle – Racism – Democrats and Republicans switch sides?

Trump Adviser: ‘He Is Stubborn And Doesn’t Realize How Bad This Is Getting’

Judge Napolitano: A Nation of Sheep

Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

Ku Klux Klan – A Secret History

Ben Shapiro: Did The Parties Switch?

Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (Dinesh D’Souza Interview)

Black History Racist Democrats Refuse to Teach Today – Pt. 1

Black History Racist Democrats Refuse to Teach Today – Pt. 2

The Reasons Why Democrats Are the Party of Slavery and Victimization | ZoNation

Sheriff Clarke ‘proud’ of Trump’s Charlottesville response

The Camera Caught A Key Moment At The Charlottesville Incident That Changes The Whole Story!

RIOTERS BEWARE: LIBERAL PROTESTERS ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE WHAT JEFF SESSIONS DID SECONDS AGO

 

Tearing Down Monuments of War – Is Destroying the Legacy of American Heroes Right or Wrong?

Credit Denise Sanders/The Baltimore Sun, via Associated Press

Recent news involving Al Sharpton criticizing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Museum, and the arrest of Antifa protester Takiyah Thompson who helped topple a Confederate statue, has many liberals applauding and many conservatives decrying the death of American Patriotism.  Who’s right and who’s wrong?  Is it repairing injustice or perpetuating the hate?

The Left’s Argument: Glorification of the Immoral

The left’s argument is that to bring public glory to Confederate, Nazi or Colonial figures of history, who were decidedly immoral in conscience, is our right as a progressive society. The first amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression doesn’t apply to public statues, which supposedly reflect the modern public’s appreciation of the American heritage of old. We keep their statues because, in theory, we agree with these depictions of heroism. We feel they represent us as a state, as a federal republic, and as Americans.

First amendment rights do not protect the right of public exhibition—rather, the right to privately exercise free speech and pay honor to any historical figure of choice behind closed doors or in a gathering of peers, with land owners that reflect the views of the party.

Not surprisingly, Nazis and other white supremacists are finding it difficult to book public venues because their ideology is offensive to most Americans. Corporations that own these venues usually don’t court public controversy for any reason, and so citing first amendment rights does not apply in this case.

If Antifa’s concluding solution to dissenters of the left is ever to invade the private properties of white supremacists, they would be exhibiting behavior like the Nazi Gestapo—the very evil they claim to fight against. However, the demonstrations have not reached that point yet.  Thus far the argument is that “we” don’t want symbols of segregation or slavery in the public eye.

The Right’s Argument: Cultural Marxism

The right’s argument is that removing these figures is un-American, treasonous and seditious—especially since Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Robert E. Lee, are all important figures in American history and they’re all at threat of being torn down.  Yes, many historical figures were slave owners and were, in the case of people like Harry Truman and FDR, full blown unlikable racists who spoke disparagingly of blacks and other non-whites.

Should this necessitate removal from a public square because it is little more than an offensive exhibition, as is burning the flag, or burning copies of the Quran?

The reason why such violent demonstrators are being called “communists” is not simply as a name dropping slur. Conservatives are referring to a pattern in history called Cultural Marxism.

The very definition of Cultural Marxism is the belief that all modern human behavior stems from the culture society allows—and that all culture is malleable, and easy to shape if only society takes a firm hand in censoring thoughts and statements contrary to public decency.

Cultural Marxism has a historical pattern of “modern societies” destroying icons and imagery of the past, particularly in destroying public statues, or even in destroying the legacy of historical, fictional or religious figures—a need for modern society to reject the old doctrines and old way of life in favor of a new and greater morality.

Some have gone so far to say that Cultural Marxism is the intentional destruction of all “holy things” an old society has accomplished, from legacies to traditional schools of thought, to even the gradual molding of individual preferences towards a State model worthy of following.

The Historical Perspective of Destroying Statues

Subversify and other third party progressives take an unemotional approach to the argument, and one based on a largely historical perspective. We know for example:

1. The dead are conscious of nothing. It doesn’t hurt Andrew Jackson’s feelings that he’s not on the $20 bill. It doesn’t concern Jefferson or Washington in the least, that people 200 years removed find their lifestyles offensive. This is merely the progression of modern society—and old society will never be in sync with the modern world because it hasn’t progressed to our state of civilized behavior, our compassion and humanity, learned by experience, a gradual process that takes literally hundreds of years.

2. It is common behavior among all revolutionaries to destroy the statues, legacies and icons of old figures that no longer serve a political purpose. This is nothing new—liberal radicals in Russia did the same on the early 20th century, as did revolutionaries in the French Revolution, and all the way down to ISIS in modern times. These people would not be revolutionaries if they “fought with honor” and tried to be nice to all those wonderful dead people.

3. In an ideal world, there would be no monuments to war heroes because nobody would ever see the value of resorting to war. The pacifist argument is that we should never think of a man who has resorted to war, resorted to murdering other people for his political purposes, as anyone deserving of special honor.  He did what had to be done, according to his perspective, not what he was proud of doing.

One may argue that violence is a necessary evil, such as protecting against home invaders, serial killers and gang warfare. That may be so, but at no point has anyone erected a monument saluting Bob for shooting his next door neighbor after a break-in attempt.

Wars, at the very best, are failures of human communication. Horrific “final solutions” that leaders take because they have run out of all other reasonable options. The aim of any so-called humanist should be to promote peace, find other options to violence, and negotiate a compromise so that we can all live one more day without gunning each other down in cold blood.

There may be no real advantage to removing statues, besides appeasing an angry mob—especially since the news media is what actually riles people up to commit violence in the first place. People only know how to respond to any situation after hearing a news narrative that demonstrates a “call to action” that makes sense.

We the Subversives, in opposition to the 1% and the oppression of the poor, will not violently intervene to oppose the removal of statues consecrating dead men and their dead wars. We can only imagine that Jefferson himself, and Washington himself, would be far less concerned with their legacies and far more concerned with the survival of the United States of America—especially as it faces its greatest divisionary war yet.

Instead, we will only remind the radicals of society that if you’re going to censure war criminals and morally repugnant men and women of yesterday, don’t forget to do the same to men and women today who are equally flawed.

Destroy the legacies of men who invaded other countries and killed civilians for profit and political advantage. Stop paying homage to public figures who align themselves with political parties that are morally reprehensible, whether because of election corruption, or because their own history is steeped in racism, slavery advocacy, white supremacy and resisting a progressive society.

Subversify remains adamantly opposed to both Republican and Democratic parties and any other ideology that promotes hate and an oligarchian society.

 

The Late Mitchell Warren is the author of The End of the Magical Kingdom series, a fairy tale parody / political satire dealing with issues of politics, religion and individual responsibility.

http://subversify.com/2017/08/16/tearing-down-monuments-of-war-is-destroying-the-legacy-of-american-heroes-right-or-wrong/

A statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee was removed from the University of Texas campus in Austin early on Monday. CreditEric Gay/Associated Press

With little warning, the University of Texas at Austin removed three Confederate monuments from its campus overnight, 10 days before classes are set to begin.

Work to remove statues of two Confederate generals, Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston, and the Confederate cabinet member John Reagan began late Sunday and continued into the early morning. A statue of James Stephen Hogg, Texas’ 20th governor, was also being removed.

The university’s president, Greg Fenves, explained that the decision had been made after the violent protests in Charlottesville, Va., this month opened his eyes to what the statues represented. One woman was killed and dozens more injured after white nationalists gathered in Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a park.

In a letter to the Texas campus’s community, Mr. Fenves wrote that after the events in Charlottesville, it had become clear to him “that Confederate monuments have become symbols of modern white supremacy and neo-Nazism.”

He said the statues’ historical and cultural significance was compromised by what they symbolized, and noted that they were erected in the midst of Jim Crow and segregation and that they represented “the subjugation of African-Americans.”

“The University of Texas at Austin has a duty to preserve and study history,” Mr. Fenves wrote. “But our duty also compels us to acknowledge that those parts of our history that run counter to the university’s core values, the values of our state and the enduring values of our nation do not belong on pedestals in the heart of the Forty Acres.”

A university spokesman, J. B. Bird, said Monday that the school had chosen to remove the statues at night “for public safety and to cause the least disruption to the university community.”

The statues were the latest to be removed this year, mostly after the events in Charlottesville. In April and May, at night and under guard, New Orleans removed four Confederate statues that had been the subject of controversy for years. Last week, Baltimore removed four statues in the middle of the night, in a swift operation similar to the one in Austin. On Saturday, Duke University in Durham, N.C., removed a statue of Lee from a campus chapel, days after protesters toppled a Confederate statue at the Durham County Courthouse.

The removals have been accompanied by a new wave of opposition to the statues. On Saturday, a Houston man was taken into custody near a monument to Richard W. Dowling, a Confederate commander, in the city’s Hermann Park after a park ranger reported finding the man in possession of materials that could be used to make an explosive device.

The man, Andrew Schneck, 25, was charged with attempting to damage or destroy federal property, according to Abe Martinez, the acting United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

According to a criminal complaint released by the United States attorney’s office, Mr. Schneck told the ranger that he wanted to harm the statue and did not “like that guy.”

Meanwhile, the University of Houston announced Monday that it would be changing the name of a campus residence hall, the Calhoun Lofts, to the more innocuous “University Lofts.” Although the housing unit was not originally named for John C. Calhoun, the seventh vice-president and a strong defender of slavery, the school said that it was changing the name “in the wake of recent events, and out of sensitivity to our diverse student community.”

In Austin, three of the statues will be added to the collection of a campus historical center, where they will join a Jefferson Davis statue that was taken down in 2015 after a white supremacist killed nine black parishioners at a church in Charleston, S.C. The statue of Mr. Hogg was removed because it was a part of the broader exhibit, not because the university had ideological objections to its presence on campus, Mr. Bird said. The university is looking to find a new place for it on campus.

General Johnston was appointed to his post by Jefferson Davis in 1861 and given command of the Confederate army’s western department. He was killed in the battle of Shiloh in 1862. After resigning a congressional seat in the lead-up to the Civil War, Mr. Reagan served as the Confederacy’s postmaster general.

Austin is the Texas university system’s flagship campus. The school’s history, like that of many southern institutions, is intimately linked with the history of the Confederacy. A task force assembled to study the statues in 2015 said that removing the statue of Mr. Reagan might “put a target” on other buildings or spaces that honor Texans who fought in the Confederate army. The report noted that those Texans would include much of the university’s founding generation, including George Washington Littlefield, a regent and benefactor who commissioned the statues.

 

Story 4: Barcelona Terrorist Killed — Videos

Police Kill Man Suspected Of Deadly Barcelona Van Attack, The Fugitive Was Wearing Bomb Belt | TIME

Barcelona Terrorist being shot dead by police in Cambrils

Barcelona terror attack: How it happened

Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) – Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood

 

Hero policewoman kills FOUR jihadists wearing fake suicide vests made from Coke cans

  • Five ISIS jihadis were shot dead in a beach resort attack launched eight hours after 13 died in Barcelona
  • Jihadis in fake suicide belts gunned down by police in beach resort of Cambrils on the Costa Dorada at 1 am
  • A wounded extremist clambered to his feet and climbed crash barrier before he was killed with 15 bullets
  • Catalan police officer managed to shoot dead four of the five suspects using a handgun and saved partner
  • Yesterday a terrorist in a van launched murderous rampage on Barcelona’s packed Las Ramblas promenade
  • He fled the scene and police are now hunting for Moroccan-born Moussa Oukabir, 18, who rented the vehicle
  • Fellow young Moroccans Mohamed Hychami, Younes Abouyaaqoub and Said Aallaa now also on the run
  • Two attacks linked and police say 12-strong terror cell’s bomb factory packed with gas canisters exploded 

A hero policewoman surrounded by drugged-up jihadis wearing ‘Coke can’ suicide vests killed four out of five of them herself and saved an injured colleague, it was revealed today.

The terrorists carrying knives and an axe bailed out of their overturned Audi A3 used to plough into crowds on the seafront in Cambrils on the Costa Dorada at 1am today, killing a woman, 61, from Zaragoza, and injuring six others.

Two police officers were on a routine foot patrol when one was hit by the car and within seconds her partner pulled out a handgun and killed four of them as they charged her.

The fifth terrorist ran into a park and was gunned down minutes later by a policeman – but clambered to his feet with a smile on his face and ran at armed officers who eventually needed 15 bullets to kill him.

Today Catalan police chief Josep Luis Trapero confirmed a single officer, who was meant to be on holiday this week, killed four of the terrorists and said: ‘To kill four people, even if you are a professional, is not easy to digest’, adding the officer was now receiving psychological support.

Eight hours earlier a ‘linked’ ISIS van assault on the packed Los Ramblas boulevard in Barcelona killed 13 including a three-year-old girl and injured at least 100 victims from 34 different countries.

Fitzroy Davies, from Wolverhampton, described how officers gunned down one of the Cambrils jihadis and filmed the moment he rose to his feet in a scene he compared to a ‘horror film’.

He said: ‘He must have been on drugs. He took the first round of shots he fell on the floor, and then within two seconds, I thought I was watching a film, one of them horror films, the guy just stood up. He was taunting, smiling, laughing and he carried on walking to the police, and then they gave it to him again, a couple more shots and then he fell to the ground’.

He said that his suicide belt ‘looked fake’, adding: ‘It looked like he was wearing Coke cans on him’.

ISIS has been feeding its fighters cheap super-amphetamine pills called Captagon, used to induce euphoria and increase adrenaline during their murderous missions.

Shocking video footage shows bodies strewn across the ground in the seaside town 

This is the moment a jihadi (pictured centre) in a fake suicide vest is finally shot dead - seconds after he was gunned down and got up again to walk towards police

The jihadi in a fake suicide vest walsk up and down the street ranting at police

He was shot and fell down - only to get up again

Witnesses described how he stood up like a monster in a horror film before being shot again

The terrorist gunned down twice lies dead on the ground - four of the five jihadis were shot dead by the same hero policeman, it emerged today

The killers, wearing fake explosive belts and clutching knives, bailed out of the shattered Audi and were seen smiling and shouting taunts at police shot them dead in the street at around 1am local time

Moroccan-born Moussa Oukabir, 18, who lives in Barcelona, has been named as a suspect in the Las Ramblas attack after reportedly stealing his brother's ID to rent the van and is still on the run

Police are hunting Moussa Oukabir (pictured), Said Aallaa, Mohamed Hychami and Younes Abouyaaqoub, over the two terror attacks in Catalonia which killed 14 people and left more than 100 injured
Police are hunting Moussa Oukabir, Said Aallaa (pictured), Mohamed Hychami and Younes Abouyaaqoub, over the two terror attacks in Catalonia which killed 14 people and left more than 100 injured
Police are hunting Moussa Oukabir, Said Aallaa, Mohamed Hychami (pictured) and Younes Abouyaaqoub, over the two terror attacks in Catalonia which killed 14 people and left more than 100 injured
Police are hunting Moussa Oukabir, Said Aallaa, Mohamed Hychami and Younes Abouyaaqoub (pictured), over the two terror attacks in Catalonia which killed 14 people and left more than 100 injured

Police are hunting (left to right) terror quartet Moussa Oukabir, Said Aallaa, Mohamed Hychami and Younes Abouyaaqoub, over the two terror attacks in Catalonia

The van used to plough into crowds in Barcelona is towed away by police in the early hours of this morning with the driver still believed to be at large

Spanish security forces escort a friend of two Moroccan-born brothers linked to the Barcelona plot after arresting him in the town of Ripoll, Catalonia

Spanish security forces escort a friend of two Moroccan-born brothers linked to the Barcelona plot after arresting him in the town of Ripoll, Catalonia

The terror began in Barcelona yesterday and spread to Cambrils overnight and police believe the terror cell has a safe house in Alcanar and has links to Moroccan brothers from Ripoll

The terror began in Barcelona yesterday afternoon and spread to Cambrils overnight and police believe the terror cell has a safe house in Alcanar and has links to Moroccan brothers from Ripoll. The coast south of Barcelona has a reputation as a hotbed for terrorists and a key meeting to plan 9/11 was held a few miles from Cambrils

Multiple gunshots heard after sirens near house party in Cambrils

THE TERRORISTS KILLED AND SUSPECTS ARRESTED AFTER THE BARCELONA ATTACKS

As of Friday morning, four people have been arrested and six people have been killed in connection with the terrorist attacks in Barcelona and Cambril.

The four arrested include one Spanish and one Moroccan national.

One man handed himself into police on Thursday evening: This is Driss Oukabir, 28, a Moroccan national living in Ripoll, 65 miles north of Barcelona.

He claims he is not connected and that his identity documents had been stolen by his younger brother.

Moussa Oukabir, 18, is now being hunted by police, thought to have been the driver of the van on Las Ramblas that killed 13 and injured 100.

Thursday also saw one man arrested in Alcanar, 120 miles south of Barcelona, where the gas explosion in a house is being investigated.

One man died in this explosion, who has since been linked to the attacks last night.

Police believe the house where the explosion took place was being used as a bomb factory by the terrorists.

The third arrest, a man of unknown nationality, was also made in Ripoll, on Friday morning.

He is reportedly the driver of a Ford Focus which smashed though a police checkpoint on Thursday.

The driver fled the scene, leaving behind the car in which police found the car’s owner stabbed to death.

Five men wearing fake suicide belts were shot dead by police after they launched a second terrorist attack in Cambrils, 70 miles southwest of Barcelona at 1am Friday morning, injuring seven people by driving an Audi A3 into crowds on the seafront.

Eight hours earlier an ISIS jihadi drove a van at 60mph through crowds of people on Barcelona’s famous Las Ramblas promenade – Spain’s busiest tourist street – which was ‘jam-packed’ with holidaymakers and locals.

Police are today hunting for Europe’s most wanted man Moussa Oukabir, an 18-year-old Moroccan-born teenager believed to have been the driver. He fled on foot and it is unclear if he joined the Cambrils attack. Three of his young friends are also on the run.

His brother Driss’ ID was used to rent up to three vans including the one in the attack but he has handed himself into police and denied any involvement. He is among four people arrested.

Police are linking the Barcelona and Cambrils attacks and believe the terror cell with up to 12 members had a base in the resort town of Alcanar, 120 miles south of Barcelona, where a house-cum-bomb factory packed with gas canisters was destroyed in an explosion on Wednesday killing one man and injuring another.

Five jihadis have been shot dead and four men including Driss Oukabir, 28, have been arrested.

A fourth suspect was gunned down in his car as he rammed officers at a roadblock in Sant Just Desvern, Barcelona. But Spanish media said he may have been the victim of a hijacking because he also had knife wounds.

As ISIS terrorists caused carnage in one of Europe’s great cities once again, it emerged today:

  • 13 were killed and at least 100 injured after an ISIS jihadi used a white Fiat van as a weapon on Los Ramblas, Barcelona at 4pm yesterday;
  • The driver flees the scene after driving at 60mph along 500 yards of road swerving to hit men, women and children including dozens of tourists;
  • Fugitive Moussa Oukabir, an 18-year-old Moroccan-born teenager, is Europe’s most wanted man and is believed to have been the driver of the van; Three other Moroccans Mohamed Hychami, 24, Younes Abouyaaqoub, 22, and Said Aallaa, 18, are also on the run;
  • Moussa may have rented up to three vehicles using his brother Driss’ ID and his 28-year-old older sibling has since handed himself in to police and is among four suspects arrested, including some mutual friends;
  • At 1am a second terror attack takes place in Cambrils, a seaside resort around 70 miles from Barcelona. An Audi A3 with five jihadis on board ploughs through crowds killing one woman and injuring six more including a policeman. Their car turns over and they bail out with knives before being shot dead by police in the street;
  • Police say a house in Alcanar, further along the Costa Dorada from Barcelona, exploded on Wednesday killing one man. They say it was packed with gas canisters and contained maps of Barcelona and is now understood to be the terror cell’s headquarters and bomb factory;
  • A man was shot dead in the town of Sant Just Desvern close to Barcelona after he drove at a road block. Police now believe he was a not a terrorist either fleeing the city in fear or may have been the victim of a hijacking;
  • ISIS have claimed responsibility for the attacks, which are strikingly similar to attacks in LondonBerlin, Stockholm and Nice, where rented vehicles were used as weapons;
  • CIA warned Spanish police two months ago that Barcelona faced an imminent attack;

Families fled for their lives yesterday when suspected Islamic State terrorists mowed down dozens in a hotspot for British holidaymakers.

More than 100 men, women and children were mowed down and their broken bodies lay in pools of blood on the famous Las Ramblas street at 4pm yesterday, where 13 are confirmed dead.

Prams and toys lay among the carnage alongside tourists’ ‘selfie sticks’, discarded in the chaos as families fled the terror attack.

Shops, bars and restaurants packed with tourists and locals were abandoned with drinks, half-eaten meals and ice creams abandoned on the tables.

Pictures from their Alcanar bomb factory show more than 20 butane gas canisters scattered in the rubble and detectives found paperwork suggesting an attack in Barcelona was imminent.

It was unclear whether the house was deliberately destroyed to hide evidence or whether an accidental detonation forced the cell to rush through an improvised van attack. One person pulled from the rubble of the house was among four people so far arrested for the plot.

The attack in the coastal town began when a van hit pedestrians near the port area, leaving seven people including a police officer injured. The van then overturned and the attackers, now on foot, were shot by police as they attempted to leave the scene. It was unclear whether they were armed.

Spain's King Felipe VI (C), Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy (L) and President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont applaud after observing a minute of silence for the victims in Barcelona today

Spain’s King Felipe VI (C), Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy (L) and President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont applaud after observing a minute of silence for the victims in Barcelona today

Huge crowds gathered at Plaza de Catalunya, which sits at the top of Los Ramblas, to observe a minute's silence that turned into applause 

Huge crowds gathered at Plaza de Catalunya, which sits at the top of Los Ramblas, to observe a minute’s silence that turned into applause

Crowds have returned to the scene of yesterday's terror attack to remember those killed or injured by the rampaging van

Crowds have returned to the scene of yesterday’s terror attack to remember those killed or injured by the rampaging van

Flowers and candles are starting to be laid at the top of Los Ramblas today as the city comes to terms with the shocking attack

Flowers and candles are starting to be laid at the top of Los Ramblas today as the city comes to terms with the shocking attack

Mourners in Barcelona were in tears and clinging to eachother for support as they surveyed the scene of devastation today

Large units of police are patrolling Los Ramblas today as tourists and local returned to the area where 13 died yesterday

In Cambrils - the scene of the second terror attack - armed police are patrolling the streets and blood was being washed from the cobbled streets

In Cambrils - the scene of the second terror attack - armed police are patrolling the streets and blood was being washed from the cobbled streets

A crowd in Barcelona’s main square defiantly shouted “not afraid” today following a minute’s silence attended by Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and King Felipe VI, held for the victims of a double vehicle attack.

Standing silent in the Plaza de Catalunya, Rajoy joined the king and Carles Puigdemont, the president of the Catalonia region where Barcelona is located, in mourning the victims of attacks that left 13 dead and more than 100 injured.

At loggerheads as the separatist Catalan government attempts to break away from Spain, Rajoy and Puigdemont put their differences aside as they held the minute of silence in the square near the scene of the Barcelona attack.

Just after, crowds at the square broke out in loud applause, shouting “I’m not afraid.”

Dramatic video posted online showed bystanders walking casually towards police cars before gunshots rang out, sending them leaping for safety on the beach below the raised roadway.

A second video shows four bodies lying on and near the road, apparently some way from the overturned vehicle, which is not in shot. The suspected suicide belts can be seen around the waists of the dead men.

A Spanish man filmed three of the terrorists as they lay dead on the ground, saying: ‘Look, there are two dead lying there on the floor. Sons of bitches, they were wearing explosives. No there are three of them. They were wearing explosives. Sons of bitches!’

Markel Artabe, a 20-year-old restaurant worker, said he was on the seaside promenade when he heard what he initially thought were fireworks, but soon realised were gunshots.

He said he saw someone lying on the ground ‘with a gunshot in the head’. The victim’s friends were crying out ‘help’, he added.

Joan Marc Serra Salinas, a 21-year-old waiter, said he heard many gunshots.

‘And shouting. And more shouting. I jumped onto the beach and didn’t move,’ he said.

A spokesman for the regional government in Catalonia said: ‘The suspected terrorists were driving an Audi A3 and ran down several people, until they crashed into a Mossos d’Esquadra patrol and the shootout began.’

As the Cambrils attack began police warned locals to stay inside – and many locked themselves inside hotels and bars.

Six people including a police officer were injured in the Cambrils attack, in the province of Tarragona. One was today in a critical condition in hospital, with another two seriously injured.

Four of the terrorists were killed immediately in the shootout and the fifth was shot and later arrested after being located by police in a helicopter. He later died from his injuries.

The regional police tweeted: ‘We are working with the hypothesis that the crimes in Cambrils are a terrorist attack. We have taken down those presumed responsible.We confirm that the 5th terrorist taken down in Cambrils, who was injured, has died.’

Driss Oukabir (pictured) has been arrested by police, according to local media reports. The Guardia Civil previously said the van used in the attack was rented by Oukabir in the town of Santa Perpetua de la Mogada

One of the arrested suspects is believed to be Driss Oukabir

Driss Oukabir (pictured) has been arrested by police, according to local media reports. The Guardia Civil previously said the van used in the attack was rented by Oukabir in the town of Santa Perpetua de la Mogada

Police officers rushed to the seaside resort to carry out an operation and ended up shooting the five terror suspects dead

Seven members of the public including a policeman were hurt in the new attack in Cambrils, 70 miles from Barcelona, which saw the jihadis’ car overturn before armed police gunned down the suspects

Seven members of the public including a policeman were hurt in the new attack in Cambrils, 70 miles from Barcelona, which saw the jihadis’ car overturn before armed police gunned down the suspects

Five terrorists were shot dead by police in the resort of Cambrils, south of Barcelona, as they carried out a new terror attack

Police officers and forensic personnel begin a search of the vehicle driven by the suspected Jihadists, who were quickly shot dead after the car flipped in the road

Police officers and forensic personnel begin a search of the vehicle driven by the suspected Jihadists, who were quickly shot dead after the car flipped in the road

The attack in the coastal town began when a van hit pedestrians near the port area, leaving seven people including a police officer injured

In Barcelona, a hired van (pictured), registered to rental company Telefurgo, rammed into scores of holidaymakers and their children. The crumpled van is pictured as a body lies on the ground

In Barcelona, a hired van (pictured), registered to rental company Telefurgo, rammed into scores of holidaymakers and their children. The crumpled van is pictured as a body lies on the ground

Horrifying images of the aftermath show an elderly couple were among the injured after the van ploughed into pedestrians on the busy Barcelona street

Horrifying images of the aftermath show an elderly couple were among the injured after the van ploughed into pedestrians on the busy Barcelona street

Police were seen arresting a suspect

They arrested a man earlier on Thursday

Stills from a video showing a man being arrested by Spanish police in Barcelona after the suspected terror attack in the heart of the city

There are harrowing scenes in Barcelona after a van was driven into pedestrians in Las Ramblas in the heart of the city. Thirteen people have been killed and more than 100 have been injured as armed police swarm the streets

How the Barcelona attack unfolded: Map shows the route the terrorist took as he ploughed into scores of holidaymakers

In a day of chaos and carnage that saw the deadliest Islamic terror attack in Spain since the 2004 Madrid bombings that killed 192, the biggest loss of life was in Barcelona.

The lone terrorist swerved his van onto the paved walkway of Las Ramblas and ploughed on for hundreds of yards. By the time he came to a halt, 13 people were dead and more than 100 more injured. Three Germans, a Greek and a Belgian were among the dead. More than 20 French nationals are believed to have been injured.

A five-year-old Irish boy suffered a broken leg when his family was caught up in the terror attack in Barcelona.

The boy’s father also has leg injuries after a van was driven into innocent people in Las Ramblas, one of the busiest avenues in the Spanish city.

Ireland’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Simon Coveney, said: ‘They are not life-threatening, I’m relieved to say. But in a way it’s a miracle that more Irish people weren’t involved, given that there are so many Irish people in Spain, Barcelona and Cambrils at this time of year.’

ISIS hits Europe with yet another marauding vehicle attack

The attack is the sixth time in a year that Islamic fanatics have used vehicles to kill pedestrians in Europe – with more than 100 dead.

· On July 14 last year, a truck was driven into crowds in Nice on Bastille Day, killing 86 revellers.

· On December 19, 12 died in Berlin when a truck smashed through a Christmas market in the German capital.

· On March 22 this year, five died after Khalid Masood drove into crowds on Westminster Bridge in Central London.

· On April 7, a fanatic drove a truck into pedestrians in Stockholm, killing five.

· On June 3, eight died when three attackers in a van mowed down passers-by on London Bridge (pictured above) before stabbing others nearby.

The father and son were part a family of four, including the mother and a daughter, and are understood to have been on a trip to celebrate the boy’s birthday. The youngster suffered a broken femur.

Spanish police initially named their prime suspect in the attack as the man they said hired the van, Driss Oukabir, a 28-year-old Morocco-born man living in the town of Ripoll, 65 miles north of Barcelona.

However hours later he apparently presented himself at a police station in Ripoll and claimed his 18-year-old brother Moussa had stolen his papers to hire the van.

Disturbing comments posted on social network Kiwi by an account carrying Moussa Oukabir’s name and photograph makes reference to killing all infidels.

Driss was the second of the two people arrested, while Moussa remained unaccounted for this morning.

Horrifying pictures and video from the scene of the Las Ramblas attack show armed police and paramedics rushing around the busy promenade in the centre of the city, as victims lie hurt in the street.

Josep Lluis Trapero, the head of the regional police force the Mossos d’Esquadra, said the attack was designed ‘to kill as many people as possible’.

A witness called Angel said he saw the attacker close up and described him as ‘a young man, maximum 25 years old, chestnut brown hair and skinny.’

Others described him as about 5ft 6in tall and wearing a blue and white striped top.

Another witness, Isaac, said: ‘The person was accelerating. He mounted the pavement to run people over. We saw the van passing by running people over at 50 miles an hour. It was as if it was driving through a field of corn.’

A taxi driver told Catalan TV station TV3: ‘The van was doing zigzags knocking over everyone he could. It was shocking.’

Aamer Anwar was walking down Las Ramblas at the time, which he said was ‘jam-packed’ with tourists.

He told Sky News: ‘All of a sudden, I just sort of heard a crashing noise and the whole street just started to run, screaming. I saw a woman right next to me screaming for her kids.’

Briton Steve Garrett was in a nearby market and sheltered in a bakery with several others after streams of people ran inside.

Mr Garrett told the BBC: ‘A very large number of people ran into the market area in a big kind of way, lots of screaming, lots of shouting.

‘Obviously coming from England it was reminding me a great deal of what happened in London, so we were very concerned about what might be going on next.’

Mr Garrett said a ‘second wave’ of people then entered the market, followed by armed police.

He said: ‘They seemed to sweep through the market area. They seemed to be looking for someone. They were going very carefully, very cautiously, stall to stall.’

Another witness told Sky News: ‘It was quite terrifying. All of a sudden scores of people ran towards us, hysterical, children hysterical… first of all they said someone had been shot.

‘All of a sudden a second wave of people came down the street, we just ran, I lost my husband in the melee. The shops went into lockdown mode.’

She added: ‘We really had no idea what was going on other than that we needed to get ourselves out of there very quickly… there was just hundreds of people running away very quickly.’

'Bomb factory' blast: A home in Alcanar which exploded on Wednesday leaving butane gas canisters strewn in the rubble was linked to the terror cell, say police, who believe it was being used to make explosives. One man died in the blast and people were hurt

‘Bomb factory’ blast: A home in Alcanar which exploded on Wednesday leaving butane gas canisters strewn in the rubble was linked to the terror cell, say police, who believe it was being used to make explosives. One man died in the blast and people were hurt

Police are linking the terror attack in Barcelona to an explosion at a home 125 miles south of the city, which is believed to have been caused by canisters filled with butane

Police are linking the terror attack in Barcelona to an explosion at a home 125 miles south of the city, which is believed to have been caused by canisters filled with butane

Investigators have confirmed that yesterday's explosion is being linked to the terror attack in Barcelona 

Investigators have confirmed that yesterday’s explosion is being linked to the terror attack in Barcelona

BRITISH ACTRESS ‘WAS FORCED TO HIDE IN FREEZER’

Laila Roussa dramatically live tweeter her experience as the horrifying attack unfolded in Barcelona

Laila Roussa dramatically live tweeter her experience as the horrifying attack unfolded in Barcelona

Actress Laila Rouass has dramatically live tweeted her experience ‘hiding in a restaurant freezer’ after being caught up in the horrific terrorist attack in Barcelona.

The wife of snooker star Ronnie O’Sullivan, 46, took to Twitter amid the brutal terror attack which is believed to have claimed the lives of 13 people and wounded 100 others.

Tweeting directly in the middle of the attack, the former Holby City star said: ‘In the middle of the attack. Hiding in a restaurant freezer. Happened so fast. Praying for the safety of everyone here x.’

And in a later tweet, the star, from Stepney in London, posted: ‘Gunshots just heard. Armed police running down the street looking for someone.’

In a series of further tweets she added: ‘The whole of Las Ramblas and surrounding roads in lock down with armed police everywhere,’ and ‘hearing one person has been shot.’

Friend of Mrs Rouass and fellow actor Douglas Henshall tweeted a message of support to the former Holby City star.

He said: ‘F*** sake Laila stay safe. X’.

Tom Gueller, who lives on an adjoining road, was forced to flee the scene when he saw the van hurtling through the crowds.

He told BBC’s PM: ‘I heard screams and a bit of a crash and then I just saw the crowd parting and this van going full pelt down the middle of the Ramblas and I immediately knew that it was a terrorist attack or something like that.

‘I ran away, I mean I live near, I had to run back about 50 metres or so and go up to my flat and obviously see what’s happening on the road from my balcony.’

Asked about the van, he said: ‘It wasn’t slowing down at all. It was just going straight through the middle of the crowds in the middle of the Ramblas.’

Police chief Trapero told a news conference: ‘At 16.50 a van entered the pedestrian area of the Rambla, and drove for many meters, running over hundreds of people.

‘Many of them were injured and it caused the death of 13 people. The driver got out of the van and ran away. There was no shouting, no phrases which sometimes accompany such attacks. Witnesses called the emergency services and gave a description.

‘The Mossos began Operation Cage, an anti-terrorist operation throughout Catalonia. There is no evidence that the person who left the van was armed. We do not believe he was armed, at least visibly.

‘We entered all of the bars and establishments of the area to check nobody was hiding. This was clearly a terrorist attack with the intention of killing as many people as possible.

‘It is believed to be connected with a second incident – the explosion of a house in Alcanar. We received an alert of an explosion where one person has died and others were injured.

‘A part of the building collapsed. We are linking these two incidents. I cannot give further details as we are still working on the investigation.

At least 13 people have been killed and dozens injured after a van ploughed into pedestrians in Las Ramblas, Barcelona's busiest tourist area

At least 13 people have been killed and dozens injured after a van ploughed into pedestrians in Las Ramblas, Barcelona’s busiest tourist area

Eyewitnesses said swarms of people were running for their lives with one woman desperately screaming out for her child. The van can be seen with a crumpled bonnet as people lie motionless on the pavement

Eyewitnesses said swarms of people were running for their lives with one woman desperately screaming out for her child. The van can be seen with a crumpled bonnet as people lie motionless on the pavement

Footage had emerged of heavily armed police swarming the area, searching for the attackers. Witnesses said the area was swamped with terror cops and plain clothed officers ‘within 30 seconds’ 

Footage had emerged of heavily armed police swarming the area, searching for the attackers. Witnesses said the area was swamped with terror cops and plain clothed officers ‘within 30 seconds’

‘This led to the arrest of two people directly implicated in this attack. This does not mean that the two people under arrest are those who carried out the attack in Barcelona – but they are connected to the attack.

‘Neither of them was the person driving the van. Neither of them has any convictions for terrorism. One is from Melilla [a Spanish enclave in north Africa] and the other is Moroccan.

‘One person was arrested in Alcanar and the other, a Moroccan, in Ripoll.’

World leaders were quick to condemn the bloodbath, with UK Prime Minister Theresa May saying Britain ‘stands with Spain against terror’ in response to the tragic news.

She added: ‘My thoughts are with the victims of the terrible attack in Barcelona and the emergency services responding to this ongoing incident. The UK stands with Spain against terror.’

US President Donald Trump condemned the attack and promised to do ‘whatever is necessary to help’ the Spanish.

As news of the atrocity was breaking, US First Lady Melania Trump tweeted: ‘Thoughts and prayers to #Barcelona’.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, tweeted: ‘My thoughts are with the victims of this barbaric terrorist attack in the great city of Barcelona and with their brave emergency services.’

Mr Khan added: ‘London stands with Barcelona against the evil of terrorism.’

Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau says a moment of silence will be held in the city’s main square at noon today ‘to show that we are not scared and we are more united that ever’.

Many of those injured were seriously hurt, and Catalonia’s interior minister Joaquim Forn said he thought it ‘very possible’ that the number of dead will rise.

Pedestrians treated on ground after truck crashes into crowd

A woman lies injured on the pavement as paramedics offer treatment just moments after the van ploughed into pedestrians on Thursday 

A woman lies injured on the pavement as paramedics offer treatment just moments after the van ploughed into pedestrians on Thursday

Police have confirmed that at least 100 people are injured, with Catalonia's interior minister Joaquim Forn saying it is 'very possible' that the number of dead will rise

Police have confirmed that at least 100 people are injured, with Catalonia’s interior minister Joaquim Forn saying it is ‘very possible’ that the number of dead will rise

Victims lie in the street after the van attack in Barcelona

The attack has claimed 13 lives and left more than 100 injured

Victims lie in the street after the van attack in Barcelona, which has claimed 13 lives and left more than 100 injured

Armed police on the streets of Barcelona following Thursday's atrocity, which saw a van plough into crowds of pedestrians in the city's tourist area

Armed police on the streets of Barcelona following Thursday’s atrocity, which saw a van plough into crowds of pedestrians in the city’s tourist area

Armed policemen arrive in a cordoned-off area after a van ploughed into a crowd in Barcelona, killing at least 13 people yesterday 

Armed policemen arrive in a cordoned-off area after a van ploughed into a crowd in Barcelona, killing at least 13 people yesterday

The confusion and carnage was added to when a white Ford Focus car rammed police at a roadblock that had been set up to try and capture the fugitive terrorists, injuring three officers including a woman who suffered a broken leg.

The driver was shot dead after what was described as an exchange of fire, however officials last night sought to downplay the link to the terror plot.

Police chief Mr Trapero told his press conference: ‘He is a Spanish national and at the moment we have no indication he is linked to these other people.’

One of the terrorists ran on foot after carrying out the attack in the centre of Barcelona, which is typically packed with tourists 

One of the terrorists ran on foot after carrying out the attack in the centre of Barcelona, which is typically packed with tourists

People gather round a victim after the van drove into a crowd in Barcelona 

People flee after the van drove into crowds in centre of Barcelona 

People flee after the van drove into crowds in centre of Barcelona which left at least 13 people dead and more than 100 injured

The scene in Barcelona on Thursday as emergency services rush to help after Barcelona was attacked by suspected terrorists

The scene in Barcelona on Thursday as emergency services rush to help after Barcelona was attacked by suspected terrorists

Injured people are treated at the scene in Las Ramblas, Barcelona after the horrific attack. Right: People trapped in a shop under police guard

The civil guard has said the van used in the attack was rented in the town of Santa Perpetua de la Mogada, which is around 15 miles by road from the scene of the killings.

A second van was found parked in the town of Vic, which is around 50 miles north of Barcelona. Police believe it was meant to be used as a getaway vehicle.

Local newspaper El Periodico said the CIA had warned local police two months ago that La Rambla could be the scene of a terrorist attack.

The incident has taken place at the height of the tourist season in Barcelona, which is one of Europe’s top travel destinations with at least 11 million visitors a year.

A man sits on the pavement with his head in his hands after the tragic attack, now being treated as a terrorist incident

A man sits on the pavement with his head in his hands after the tragic attack, now being treated as a terrorist incident

People taking refuge in a shop near Las Ramblas in Barcelona after fleeing the busy promenade after the attack on Thursday 

People taking refuge in a shop near Las Ramblas in Barcelona after fleeing the busy promenade after the attack on Thursday

People are guided out of a fast food restaurant by police after the attack in Barcelona on Thursday afternoon 

People are guided out of a fast food restaurant by police after the attack in Barcelona on Thursday afternoon

The most wanted man in Europe: Manhunt for 18-year-old Barcelona terror suspect ‘who stole his brother’s identity and talked about killing infidels on social media’ 

Police are still hunting the teenager thought to have been behind the Barcelona terror attack which killed 13 and injured more than 100 people.

Moussa Oukabir, 18, is believed to have stolen his older brother’s identity documents to rent the white Renault van which ploughed into pedestrians on a busy street popular with tourists.

The teenager, said to be a Spanish national of Moroccan heritage, had previously written about ‘killing infidels’ in a chilling online post.

His brother Driss Oukabir, 28, was initially named as a suspect but later handed himself to a police station in Ripoll, a town to the north of Barcelona, not far from the French border.

The older brother, whose identity document is said to have been found in the van, was reportedly arrested after he told police his brother took his ID documents.

Moussa Oukabir is being hunted by police after his brother said he stole his ID to rent a van used in the Barcelona terror attack

Driss Oukabir was initially named as a suspect. It is understood his ID was found in the van used in the attack. He later said his younger brother stole his ID to rent the van

Police circulated the image of Driss Oukabir, 28, (right) saying he had rented a van used in the attack – but he later accused his brother Moussa (left) of stealing his ID documents to rent at least one van

An account with Moussa Oukabir's name and photograph posted on social media that, on his first day ruling the world, he would 'kill the infidels' and 'let Muslims follow the religion'

An account with Moussa Oukabir’s name and photograph posted on social media that, on his first day ruling the world, he would ‘kill the infidels’ and ‘let Muslims follow the religion’

On the run: Spanish police are now looking for the teenager in connection with yesterday's attack, which killed at least 13 people and injured more than 100

On the run: Spanish police are now looking for the teenager in connection with yesterday’s attack, which killed at least 13 people and injured more than 100

Moussa can be seen smiling and posing in images on his social media accounts, which he also used to air hatred for non-Muslims.

The teenager, reportedly a resident of Barcelona, posted on social network Kiwi that, if he was king of the world, his first act would be to ‘kill the infidels’.

After Moussa’s brother and another suspect were detained yesterday, police arrested a third person, a 34-year-old Moroccan, in Ripoll today. Moussa however is still on the run.

A security expert told the New York Times that police believe three vans were hired using the elder Oukabir brother’s ID, after the plotters were unable to hire a larger truck.

Little is yet known about Moussa, although his brother is thought to have been born in the small Moroccan town of Aghbala, on the edge of the Sahara Desert. He is said to have come to Spain via Marseille in the south of France.

In the aftermath of the attack police circulated an image of the elder Oukabir, a Catalan resident of Moroccan origin, saying he had rented out a second van thought to be intended as a getaway vehicle – where his documents were found.

But police sources said Driss later handed himself in at a police station in Ripoll, 65 miles north of Barcelona, claiming his brother had stolen his documents, leading to police now focusing on finding Moussa.

On Friday morning, a third person was arrested by police investigating the attacks – also in the city of Ripoll.

Moussa pulling typical teenage poses on social media, where he also posted about hatred for non-Muslims

Moussa is said to be a Spanish national of Moroccan origin. His brother is understood to have been born in the small Moroccan town of Aghbala

Moussa is said to be a Spanish national of Moroccan origin. His brother is understood to have been born in the small Moroccan town of Aghbala

Authorities tow the van which ploughed into the crowd on Las Ramblas on Thursday

Authorities tow the van which ploughed into the crowd on Las Ramblas on Thursday

Damage: The front of the van can be seen destroyed in these images taken late last night

Damage: The front of the van can be seen destroyed in these images taken late last night

Hunted: The driver of the van is still on the run, but it is not known who was behind the wheel

Hunted: The driver of the van is still on the run, but it is not known who was behind the wheel

Spanish police has linked Thursday's attack to an explosion that killed at least one person in a Alcanar, 120 miles south of the Barcelona

Spanish police has linked Thursday’s attack to an explosion that killed at least one person in a Alcanar, 120 miles south of the Barcelona

Police officers rushed over to treat what is believed to be an officer after a driver in a Ford Focus drove through a roadblock 

British boy, seven, among those missing after Barcelona massacre as death toll from attacks rises to 14 and photos emerge of Las Ramblas victims – including Italian father killed while shielding his son 

Desperate families of those missing after the Spanish terror attacks searched for their loved ones on Friday as the death toll rose to 14 and the first victims were identified.

Seven-year-old Julian Cadman, who was born in Kent but moved to Australia three years ago, was named among the missing by his cousin who posted an appeal online after the boy’s mother, Jom, was listed as being in a serious condition in hospital by Spanish authorities.

His father, Andrew, is currently flying from Sydney to Spain to help in the search for his missing son without knowing whether the boy is dead or alive.

Meanwhile Heidi Nunes, from California, also appealed for information about her husband Jared Tucker, 43, on Friday after they got separated during the attack while out shopping.

Elsewhere the first of those killed in the ISIS attack on Las Ramblas were named as Italians Bruno Gulotta and Luca Russo, Belgian mother-of-two Elke Vanbockrijck, 44, and 57-year-old Spaniard Fransisco Lopez Rodriguez.

A three-year-old Spanish boy from Llimiana was also killed in the attack, the town’s mayor said. He was with his mother, grandmother, sister and aunt who was injured trying to save him.

It came as the death toll from both the Barcelona and Cambrils attack was raised to 14, while 130 people were confirmed injured, including 17 in critical condition and 30 in serious condition.

Julian Cadman, seven, believed to be from Britain, is missing after the terror attack in Barcelona has his family appeal for news

Julian was pictured enjoying his holiday in Barcelona just hours before the attack took place. British authorities have confirmed 'a small number of citizens' were caught up in the attack, but would not say if they were among the injured or dead

Julian was pictured enjoying his holiday in Barcelona just hours before the attack took place. British authorities have confirmed ‘a small number of citizens’ were caught up in the attack, but would not say if they were among the injured or dead

Luca Russo, 25, an engineer from Padua, in Italy, was also confirmed among the dead. He was on holiday at the time of the attack alongside his girlfriend Marta Scomazzon

Luca Russo, 25, an engineer from Padua, in Italy, was also confirmed among the dead. He was on holiday at the time of the attack alongside his girlfriend Marta Scomazzon

Miss Scomazzon (pictured with boyfriend Luca before the attack) was left with a broken collarbone after being hit, Italian media reported on Friday

Miss Scomazzon (pictured with boyfriend Luca before the attack) was left with a broken collarbone after being hit, Italian media reported on Friday

Elke Vanbockrijck, 44, from Belgium, has been identified as being among the dead. Authorities said she was on holiday with her husband and sons when she was run down and killed

Elke Vanbockrijck, 44, from Belgium, has been identified as being among the dead. Authorities said she was on holiday with her husband and sons when she was run down and killed

Spanish authorities say 57-year-old  Francisco Lopez Rodriguez (pictured on Las Ramblas moments before the attack) died on the spot after being hit by ISIS terrorists. He was earlier reported as missing

Spanish authorities say 57-year-old  Francisco Lopez Rodriguez (pictured on Las Ramblas moments before the attack) died on the spot after being hit by ISIS terrorists. He was earlier reported as missing

Heidi Nunes, from California, said online that her husband Jared Tucker, 43, is missing after the pair got separated on Las Ramblas during the attack. Rex Tillerson has confirmed one American death and said the State Department is 'still confirming the deaths and injuries of others', without giving specific details

Heidi Nunes, from California, said online that her husband Jared Tucker, 43, is missing after the pair got separated on Las Ramblas during the attack

UK Prime Minister Theresa May said authorities are ‘urgently looking into reports’ of a dual-nationality child believed to be missing in Spain, and confirmed that ‘a number of British nationals’ were caught up in the attack.

Mrs May gave no indication if those Britons were among those wounded or killed.

Mr Gulotta, a computer salesman from Legnano, in northern Italy, was crushed to death in the Barcelona attack as he walked along holding his six-year-old son’s hand.

His wife, Martina, said he died kneeling down to shield their son and seven-month-old daughter from the van, according to boss Pino Bruno, who claimed to have spoken with her.

Meanwhile Belgian authorities named Mrs Vanbockrijck, from Tongeren, as among the dead, saying she was on holiday with her husband and sons at the time.

Spanish authorities said Mr Rodriguez, who was pictured on Las Ramblas moments before the attack, died on the spot after being hit by the terrorist’s van. He was earlier reported as missing.

Seven-year-old Julian Cadman’s grandmother Norma Canaveral told MailOnline: ‘We are just so worried. I am just waiting for news, hoping for good news.’

The 66-year-old, from London, said: ‘I don’t know what to say. His mother is in the hospital, she’s ok, but she became separated from Julian and we don’t know where he is. All we can do it wait.’

Julian was born in Kent and attended the Chiddingstone Nursery before moving to Sydney three years ago with his parents Jom and Andrew Cadman.

Andrew is from Australia and Jom is originally from The Philippines.

Driss Oukabir, 28, the brother of the suspected van driver, lives in Ripoll where he handed himself over to police on Thursday, while another man was also arrested there 

Driss Oukabir, 28, the brother of the suspected van driver, lives in Ripoll where he handed himself over to police on Thursday, while another man was also arrested there

King Felipe VI (centre), Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy (to his left), and President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont (to his right) led a minute of silence in Barcelona on Friday for the victims of the attack

Thousands gathered in Catalonia Square in the centre of the city in order to honour the 13 people who died in the city, and another woman who passed away on Friday after being struck in a second attack in Cambrils

Thousands gathered in Catalonia Square in the centre of the city in order to honour the 13 people who died in the city, and another woman who passed away on Friday after being struck in a second attack in Cambrils

Women on Las Ramblas, the street where the attack took place, break down in tears as they remember victims of the attack

Women on Las Ramblas, the street where the attack took place, break down in tears as they remember victims of the attack

Jom is in hospital in Barcelona as she recovers from yesterday’s attack on Las Ramblas. Julian is still missing. Andrew has flown from Sydney to Spain.

Norma, who is Jom’s cousin, but is called ‘granny’ by Julian, said her daughter Christabel Juguilon had been calling relatives to find out what has happened to Julian.

Her other daughter Norie-Jean, Jom’s niece, added: ‘I saw the post about Julian being missing on Facebook this morning but we don’t know any more.

‘Julian’s a really sweet boy. He loves to dance, he’s a lovely, bubbly boy.’

Appeals for the missing came as two Spaniards, three Germans and one Belgian were identified among the dead, according to Spanish media.

The two Spainards were reported to be a man and boy who were related and came from the Rubí neighbourhood of Barcelona.

Meanwhile citizens from America, Australia, Ireland, France, Greece, Hong Kong and the Netherlands were confirmed among the more than 100 people injured.

A six-year-old girl, also of unknown nationality, is in serious condition in hospital after suffering a cerebral haemorrhage, theNew York Times reports.

Norman and Pederlita Putot, who were born in the Philippines but lived in Ireland, were named by RTE as among those caught up in the attack along with their two Irish-born children.

Their five-year-old son, who was not named, suffered a broken leg in the attack and is now in hospital along with his father, who suffered knee injuries.

Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney said: ‘It’s a miracle that more Irish people weren’t involved, given that there are so many Irish people in Spain, Barcelona and Cambrils at this time of year.

‘At the moment, you can safely say that over 300,000 Irish people are in Spain, today as we speak.

‘This is not just an attack on Spain or on Barcelona, but it’s an attack on the way we live as European citizens in the free world.’

French authorities have confirmed the largest number of injuries so far, saying 26 of its citizens were among those hurt with 11 in serious condition.

Julie Bishop, Australia’s minister for foreign affairs, said two citizens were in critical condition following the attack, two more were injured, and a total of 16 Australians were caught up in the attack.

Belgium’s foreign affairs minister Didier Reynders confirmed one citizen had been killed and another two injured, including one in serious condition.

Meanwhile Greek authorities said three people had been injured, identifying them as a woman and her two children, though the extent of their injuries is unclear.

Chinese authorities said one person from Hong Kong was among those hurt, while the US also confirmed and American suffered minor injuries.

Three Dutch are also among the injured, though it is not known how badly.

Five Cubans were identified among the injured on Friday as the country’s embassy in Spain said four were hurt in Barcelona and a fifth received minor injuries in the Cambrils attack that wounded a total of seven people, including a police officer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4800282/PICTURED-Moroccan-man-rented-Barcelona-van.html#ixzz4qQj9MlJu

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-948

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157