Category: Safety

Women for Gun Rights Applauds Creation of New Second Amendment Rights Section

Women for Gun Rights applauds the U.S. Department of Justice’s creation of a new Second Amendment Rights Section within the Civil Rights Division, marking a historic step to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners and elevate the importance of firearms freedom at the federal level.

This is the first time the federal government has established a dedicated unit focused on protecting, not restricting, the Second Amendment. For millions of women across America – mothers, professionals, survivors, and first-time gun owners – this represents a welcome shift.

“This is a tremendous moment for the millions of Americans who choose to exercise their right to protect themselves and their families,” said Dianna Muller, Founder of Women for Gun Rights. “For too long, federal agencies have been used to advance gun-control agendas. The creation of a Second Amendment Rights Section signals that our rights are civil rights, and they deserve to be defended at the highest levels of government.”

Prior to President Trump’s inauguration in January, Women for Gun Rights called on the incoming administration to repurpose the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which poured over $1 billion dollars into the states to advance gun control legislation, toward firearms safety, education, independent research and empowerment.

“This new section is a strong step toward restoring balance, reaffirming constitutional freedoms, and ensuring the federal government upholds the rights of law-abiding Americans,” Muller added.

About Women for Gun Rights

Women for Gun Rights is a nationwide organization of women committed to safeguarding the Second Amendment. A non-partisan initiative of daughters, mothers, and sisters that believes education is the key to firearm safety and violence prevention, not legislation.

Learn more at www.WomenForGunRights.org.

Narrative Fail: Crime’s Down in Seattle as More People Own and Carry Guns.

News outlets in Seattle, Washington have been reporting a decline in gun-related violence this year in surrounding King County, but the announcement overlooks a significant fact which unintentionally derails one of the greatest gun control myths of all time, that more guns equal more violent crime.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, whose national headquarters is in King County, notes this crime decline has happened while the number of active concealed pistol licenses in the county has climbed. It is actually following a national trend, as crime has dropped around the country while gun ownership nationally has increased.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb noted the irony of these declining crime reports when balanced against the rise in gun ownership and concealed carry, not just locally, but around the country.

“For decades,” he observed, “we have seen one gun control myth after another used as excuses to restrict our Second Amendment rights. Yet here we are, when those rights are being gradually restored thanks to strategic court victories, when 29 states have adopted permitless carry laws, when more people own guns and more people are legally carrying them for personal protection, and the data shows violent crime involving guns is declining. Looks like we’ve been right all along, and the establishment media essentially is confirming it.”

For King County—Washington’s most populous and most liberal—it is simply a matter of math, Gottlieb said. August ended with 114,826 active carry licenses in the county, and September finished with 115,363 CPLs in circulation. October finished with 115,457 licenses. Nationally, the Crime Prevention Research Center estimates more than 21 million citizens are licensed to carry, and there are even more legally-armed citizens in the 29 states where no permit is required, who are carrying without a “government permission slip.”

“Gun sales are continuing steady,” Gottlieb added, “which is not surprising, considering reports of police manpower declines in many jurisdictions. In Seattle, there have been two high-profile incidents where legally armed citizens stopped criminals in their tracks this year. Around the country, people are fighting back. Maybe the criminal element is beginning to get the message.

“We’re delighted violent crime is on the decline while gun ownership is on the rise,” he said. “It demonstrates that responsible armed citizens are not part of the problem, but are part of the solution.”

Missouri prosecutors fear ruling means deadly force can be self-defense against simple assault

Missouri prosecutors are concerned that a recent decision by the state Court of Appeals could open self-defense laws so broadly that the slightest threat of a minor attack could justify a person responding with deadly violence.

The Nov. 12 ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, would threaten public safety by making it difficult to charge, try or resolve violent crimes, Robert W. Russell, president of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, wrote in an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief.

“If the opinion becomes law, mere shoving matches could justifiably be escalated to gun battles,” Russell wrote.

The ruling was made on a case that involved a fight between two women outside Anchor House, a veterans’ homeless shelter in Warren County, west of St. Louis, in November 2022.

Danielle Lechocki, a former Marine with several medical issues, said she felt “extremely threatened” after another shelter resident threatened to “mollywock” her, meaning hit her. Lechocki pulled a knife from her backpack, according to court documents, after the other woman lunged at her.

The other woman denied she went after Lechocki, who said she was just trying to show she wasn’t a “pushover.” A third person stepped in between the two women and no one was hurt.

But the county judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that as a matter of law, deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.

The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault. Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000, which would be waived if she served 25 hours of community service.

The appellate court ruled that the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The lower court’s ruling was reversed and the case was sent back for a retrial.

The Missouri Legislature changed the law on deadly force in 2007, the appeals court ruling said, allowing the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself or herself or a third person “against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony,” which was defined as “included but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense.”

Continue reading “”

Fired 7-Eleven clerk sparks debate over self-defense and company policy

Oklahoma City, Okla. — The firing of Stephanie Dilyard, a former 7-Eleven clerk in Oklahoma, has ignited widespread debate over self-defense rights and corporate policies.

Dilyard, 25, was terminated after using her personal firearm to shoot Kenneth Thompson, 59, who she claims attempted to strangle her when she refused a counterfeit bill.

Despite being protected under Oklahoma’s self-defense law, 7-Eleven cited a violation of company policy as the reason for her dismissal.

The incident has drawn significant public attention, with many criticizing 7-Eleven for prioritizing protocol over employee safety.

Attorney Noble McIntyre commented, “It’s unfortunate she didn’t shoot him twice,” highlighting the tension between self-defense rights and employment policies.

McIntyre noted that Oklahoma is an at-will employment state, allowing employers to terminate workers for almost any reason, provided it doesn’t violate public policy.

However, he emphasized that Oklahoma’s stand-your-ground law supports Dilyard’s right to defend herself.

Ed Blau, a criminal defense attorney, explained the company’s stance, stating, “7-Eleven as a corporation, they do not want all of their employees packing heat while working all over the country. That presents a tremendous liability risk for them.” Blau suggested that Dilyard might face challenges in pursuing a wrongful termination lawsuit, as the company’s policy was clear.

The case raises questions about the responsibility of employers to ensure the safety of their employees.

Blau noted, “If an employee of a convenience store such as 7-Eleven is injured or even killed while working and that store did not provide either adequate safety measures or security, that store could be held liable for putting their employee in an unsafe space.”

As the debate continues, Dilyard remains resolute, stating she would make the same decision again to ensure she returns home to her children.

The story has sparked a broader conversation about employee safety and corporate accountability, with many calling for 7-Eleven to reconsider its policies.

Gun Safety Part of Curriculum in Arkansas, Tennessee, Utah

Arkansas, Tennessee and Utah have something in common this year which recently caught the attention of network news.

All three are now teaching firearms safety in their public schools at all three levels: elementary, middle and high school, according to NBC News. The project includes what the story refers to as “5 basics of guns safety” including proper storage and what to do if a youngster finds a firearm. It’s a simple message which became widely known when it appeared as part of the National Rifle Association’s popular “Eddie Eagle” program: “Stop, Don’t Touch, Leave Quickly, Tell an Adult.” The original language was “Stop, Don’t Touch, Leave the Area, Tell an Adult.” However, the reports attributed the phrase to “hunter education courses.”

As reported by The Independent, “The new laws require teaching students about gun safety and proper storage, though only Utah’s legislation includes an opt-out provision for parents.” Interestingly, The Independent noted in its report that the gun safety project is supported by Republicans and “some non-partisan groups,” but “faces criticism from gun control advocates who argue it shifts responsibility from adults to children.”

ABC News reported that a similar law in Arizona was vetoed “by the Democratic governor.” In 2023, Gov, Katie Hobbs vetoed House Bill 2332, which was opposed by gun control proponents and criticized by the American Academy of Pediatrics, according to the Arizona Mirror.

At the time, Hobbs asserted in her veto message, “Mandatory firearm training in schools is not the solution to gun violence prevention. This requirement could lead to immediate and long-term impacts on the health and wellbeing of students, teachers, and parents.”

The network also reported, “lawmakers in at least five other states have introduced such proposals, putting schools at the forefront of yet another debate about gun violence.”

How important is such a class? Both networks referred to what happened in a fifth grade class at Berclair Elementary in Memphis. When the 16 students were asked how many had seen a real firearm, “nearly all raised their hands.”

The key thing about these gun safety courses in schools is that students do not touch any firearms.

By some estimates, there are as many as 300- to 400 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S.

Democrats’ Favorite Talking Point About Children And Gun Deaths Is A Lie.

Gun control advocates often claim that guns are the leading cause of death among children — but that is false.

Earlier this year, Virginia’s new governor-elect, Democrat Abigail Spanberger, demanded new gun control laws, calling guns “the number one killer of kids in our country.” Other Democrats such as North Carolina’s Democrat Gov. Josh Stein also mentioned it. In June, the Ad Council launched a $10 million campaign touting the “alarming statistic — gun injuries at the number one killer of children and teens in this country.” And, of course, there were parting shots from Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, literally days before they left office earlier this year, pushing the claim.

Over the last couple of years, the media has continually pushed the assertion regarding children being at risk. The Washington Post’s headline warned: “Why guns are America’s number one killer of children.” An NPR headline wrote: “Firearms overtook auto accidents as the leading cause of death in children” and the BBC noted: “Gun deaths were the leading killer of US children in 2020.” Fact-checkers from Newsweek to Snopes also push these claims.

What defines a child? For those under 18, vehicle deaths consistently outnumber firearm deaths. But in 2023 they were essentially tied. The combined total of unintentional deaths, homicides, and suicides reached 2,580 for vehicles and 2,581 for firearms. Yet those firearm numbers make the two causes seem closer than they are, because they include “justifiable homicides” — cases in which civilians or police shot young offenders who posed deadly threats.

When we exclude those justified killings and use the FBI’s count of murders instead, the firearm total drops by more than four hundred, from 2,581 to 2,166 deaths.

About 72 percent of firearm homicides involving minors occur among 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds alone make up about 57 percent of those cases. These killings overwhelmingly stem from gang activity, and even a total gun ban would do little to stop gangs from obtaining weapons to protect their highly valuable drug supplies.

So even if we classify 17-year-old gang members as “children,” the gun control claim doesn’t hold up. In 2019 and 2020, more minors died from suffocation than from firearms, and the two causes were nearly equal in 2022 and 2023.

If we define children as those under 15, motor vehicle deaths far exceed firearm deaths. From 2019 through 2023, motor vehicle deaths were 64 percent to 153 percent higher than firearm deaths (excluding justified homicides), while suffocation deaths were more frequent in 2019 and 2020, and similar in later years.

Continue reading “”

WSJ Launches Another Attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

In late October, the Wall Street. Journal ran a big piece claiming that “it’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it,” because of Stand Your Ground laws. The paper claimed that justifiable homicides by civilians increased by 59% from 2019 through 2024 in a “large sample of cities and counties” in 30 states with Stand Your Ground statutes, compared with a  smaller 16% in in total homicides in the same jurisdictions.

As we noted at the time, the WSJ’s piece had several flaws, including ignoring the fact that, besides the 30 states with Stand Your Ground statutes, there are another eight states where Stand Your Ground is found in common law. And importantly, the paper’s investigation didn’t really spend any time at all considering whether the law is allowing more people to legitimately act in self-defense.

Well, now the WSJ is out with a followup of sorts, this one allegedly focusing on “the self-defense cases that made Jacksonville No. 1 in legal homicides.” And yet again, the paper’s reporting alleges that Stand Your Ground laws are letting an untold number of people get away with murder.

Continue reading “”

Everytown Misfires in Attack on Defensive Gun Uses

When Everytown for Gun Safety announced it was holding online gun “training” classes, many anti-gun activists and volunteers with the organization were sharply critical of the move, declaring it was akin to the group normalizing gun ownership instead of advocating for a gun-free future.

Of course, the so-called training has proved to be mostly anti-gun talking points, but if the group’s anti-2A critics have any doubts that Everytown is still as opposed to our right to keep and bear arms as ever they just have to look at the organization’s latest report for reassurance.

Titled “Disarming Fear: Debunking Myths of Defensive Gun Use”, Everytown’s report starts with several incidents that they allege were reported as defensive gun uses even though there were elements of each incident that were immediately known that undercut any self-defense claim. One incident highlighted by Everytown, for example, was the shooting of teenager Ralph Yarl in Kansas City after he knocked on the wrong door of a home when he went to pick up his little brothers from a friend’s house. While Andrew Lester Lester told police that he believed that Yarl was trying to break in to his home and was “scared to death” of Yarl’s size, it only took prosecutors four days to file charges against him.

Everytown asserts that legitimate defensive gun uses are “exceedingly rare,” and that they are “often deployed against unarmed perpetrators, and often accompanied by underappreciated personal and social risks, including loss of life and property.”

How rare? Everytown says it used National Crime Victimization Survey data and came up with a figure of about 69,000 DGUs every year between 2019 and 2023. That’s far below the estimates of 1 million or more DGUs from researchers like Gary Kleck and William English, but even so, that’s about three times the number of homicides in the United States. If DGU’s are “rare”, then murders involving firearms are even more rare, which undercuts Everytown’s entire ideology.

Everytown also takes issue with using a gun to defend yourself against someone who doesn’t have a firearm.

In the majority of these uses, suspected perpetrators are unarmed. In fact, 58 percent of perpetrators are not armed with any weapon. In eight out of 10 DGUs, the suspected perpetrator is not armed with a gun.

So what? An unarmed individual can still pose a threat to life and limb. Just look at the recent DGU in Los Angeles where a 79-year-old Vietnam veteran shot and killed a man who had thrown him to the ground and broke both his legs and continued to assault him while he was writhing in pain. Does Everytown believe George Karkoc should be charged for acting in self-defense since his attacker wasn’t armed with any kind of weapon?

If not, it sure looks like they at least believe Karkoc would have been better off without a gun.

Crime victims who responded with a gun were less likely to get away from the offender than those who responded without one (7 percent with a gun compared to 18 percent without) and less likely to avoid injury (39 percent compared to 44 percent).

So… in either case the vast majority of individuals who were the victim of a violent crime were unable to get away from their attacker, and the difference in the injury rate is honestly negligible. If that’s true, then I would definitely prefer to be armed if someone decides to invade my home, carjack my vehicle, or assault me on the street.

Everytown also notes that violent crime is trending down across the United States, but as FPC’s Rob Romano notes, they still claim that an armed society is a more dangerous place.


Giffords has also recently complained about the number of justifiable homicides, which makes me wonder if this going to be a new talking point for the gun control lobby. “Too many people are defending themselves from violent attackers” doesn’t sound like a great argument to me, but maybe their focus groups are telling them differently.

Everytown’s conclusion, of course, is that you’re better off not owning a gun at all. I’d say the gun control group gave us 69,000 reasons to disregard that advice. In reality the number of defensive gun uses is likely much higher than what the anti-gun org is wililng to admit, but even using their numbers hundreds of people are protecting themselves with firearms each and every day across the United States; proof positive that DGUs aren’t uncommon or unnecessary.

More stand your ground lies

By Mike McDaniel

Since the Trayvon Martin case—my home blog Martin case archive is here–the racial grievance industry has endlessly claimed “stand your ground”—SYG—laws allow white racists to murder innocent blacks at will. Never mind that SYG was not implicated in that case and that neither the prosecution nor the defense raised it. An unmistakable case of self-defense, the local prosecutor refused to prosecute. So racially charged was the political atmosphere, then Florida AG Pam Bondi appointed a corrupt special prosecutor who lost the case.

The anti-liberty/gun industry continues to lie about SYG laws, and the Wall Street Journal has jumped on the creaky bandwagon:

 

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder.

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute.

The WSJ is, at least, misleading:

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Just because a state has a SYG law doesn’t mean SYG is implicated in every murder or justified instance of self-defense. All SYG laws do is remove any legal requirement that people unlawfully attacked run away before defending themselves. If they are legally present when and where attacked, they may “stand their ground” and defend themselves.  That’s it. The legal criteria for the use of deadly force remain, and the good guys, not Democrat’s criminal constituency, have the advantage.

Keep in mind I’m not an attorney. I’m providing only general information available by reading the use of force statues of most states. Visiting attorney Andrew Branca’s Law of Self Defense site is also helpful.

Generally, one may use deadly force if a reasonable person in like circumstances would believe they are facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Whether those elements are fulfilled is the job of the police to determine. No detective is going to simply take a defender’s word for it.

They’ll exhaustively interview all witnesses. They’ll find and collect all video from the area—almost everything is recorded these days. They’ll determine if the defender’s account is supported by physical and forensic evidence. They’re required to investigate every unattended death, even if it initially appears to be an obvious case of self-defense, as a murder until they can conclusively prove otherwise.

In the Martin case, that’s just what they did and discovered George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Ambushed out of the dark by Martin, who broke his nose, knocking Zimmerman to the ground and straddling him. Ruthlessly beating him in “MMA ground and pound” fashion as a witness recounted, Martin repeatedly beat Zimmerman’s head on a concrete sidewalk. Unable to defend himself, Zimmerman managed to draw his legally carried handgun. One round ended the attack.

Would a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position, pinned to the ground and being viciously beaten, unable to fight back, believe he was facing serious bodily injury or death? The jury, applying Florida law, thought so and so should any reasonable person.

SYG didn’t apply because Zimmerman couldn’t run even if he wanted to. All the evidence supported Zimmerman’s account.

Claiming people can “shoot first and ask questions later” or all people have to say is “I feared for my life officer,” and that SYG laws require nothing more is either a complete misunderstanding of the law or an outright lie. In the Martin case, that lie tried to further anti-white racism. Now, Giffords and the WSJ are trying to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights and necessary legal protections, which would only worsen criminal violence.

Both are as predictable as they are despicable.

How Richmond Is Rewriting the Story of Gun Violence — One Student at a Time

““There is no public safety without guns. If guns didn’t exist, yes,” said Ra-Twoine Fields. “But we live in America, where there are more guns than people. So no, there is no public safety without guns. What we can do is learn how to manage it, how to live with it responsibly.”

Fields, a firearms instructor, armed security guard, and PhD student at Saybrook University is also the founder of The Holistic Agency and Crenius, two initiatives linking creative expression, public safety, and community healing. Crenius channels art into civic engagement; The Holistic Agency takes a culturally informed approach to defensive, medical, and mental-health training, treating self-protection and wellness as parts of the same system.

He doesn’t speak for shock value. This is the foundation of his work: teaching young people not to fear the world they live in, but to survive it safely.

Fields helps lead Control the Narrative, his philosophy for harm reduction and violence prevention in Richmond. The approach is rooted in community-violence intervention (CVI) meeting those most at risk where they are, interrupting retaliation, and connecting them to counseling, job training, and other supports. He’s adapted those principles locally through The Holistic Agency’s Weapons Program, a five-week course for teens in Henrico County and Richmond who have already encountered the justice system.

The goal isn’t punishment. It’s understanding why they carry and helping them imagine a life where they don’t have to.

 

Continue reading “”

 2023 data: Other causes of death to minors are still more than firearms.

For those under 18, vehicle deaths are consistently greater than those from firearms. When you use the FBI murder data, the vehicle deaths exceed the firearm deaths for 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023 and likely 2021, though the FBI data isn’t available for that year.

About 72% of the firearm murders for those under 18 involve 15, 16, and 17-year-olds. So that would be 40% of all the firearm deaths. About 57% of those involving 16 and 17-year-olds. That is 32% of all firearm deaths. These deaths are largely gang-related and even banning guns is unlikely to stop drug gangs from getting a hold of guns to protect their extremely valuable drugs.

Continue reading “”

What Really Happened With That SIG M18 at FE Warren Air Force Base.

Two airmen at a Wyoming U.S. Air Force base have pleaded guilty to making false statements about the deadly shooting of a third that prompted the suspension of Sig Sauer M18 pistol use at nuclear weapons sites for a month, the Air Force said in a statement Friday.

The gun pause by the Air Force Global Strike Command after the death of Brayden Lovan, 21, in late July was lifted in late August after Air Force officials determined the M18 was safe to carry.

Lovan was an airman with the 90th Security Forces Squadron, 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base outside Cheyenne.

Details about his death were released for the first time Friday, including that the alleged shooter, Marcus White-Allen, had pointed the gun at Lovan’s chest in a “joking manner.” White-Allen after the shooting allegedly urged the other two surviving airmen to lie about what happened, according to the statement. …

White-Allen allegedly told [Airman Sarbjot] Badesha, “Here’s the story. Tell them that I slammed my duty belt on the desk and it went off.” White-Allen allegedly told Rodriguez to tell emergency responders that White-Allen’s “holster went off,” according to the statement.

Neither airman initially reported that information, leading investigators to believe at first that White-Allen’s M18 accidentally discharged, according to the statement.

— Mead Gruver in US nuclear airmen plead guilty to false statements in shooting that suspended Sig Sauer M18 use

Self-Proclaimed ‘Human Rights Defenders’ Attack Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Self-defense is a human right. In fact, I’d argue it’s the most fundamental of all our inherent rights. Without that right to protect our lives, what does it matter if we have the right to think or say what’s on our mind, or to worship (or not) as we choose?

So, anytime I see a self-described human rights activist talking about the right to keep and bear arms, I’m always curious to see if they’ll actually embrace the human right of self-defense, or pretend that it doesn’t exist.

Sadly, it seems that the group Mindbridge Center falls into the latter category. In a new post at Psychology today, the self-described human rights defenders argue that only by denormalizing gun ownership and adopting laws that make it harder, if not impossible, for people to defend themselves, can we build a safer America.

While many Americans believe gun ownership is widespread and normalized, the truth is more nuanced. Only about 30 percent of Americans own a gun, and among men, 60 percent do not own a firearm (Pew Research Center, 2024). Yet, public perception often overestimates gun prevalence due to cultural portrayals and media emphasis.

If 1-in-3 people engage in a particular activity, I’d say that’s a pretty normal activity, wouldn’t you? More importantly, the Mindbridge Center itself says on its website that human rights defenders are those “advocating for minoritized groups such as racial minorities, Indigenous people, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or the disabled community.”

So here’s my question to Mindbridge; if advocating for minoritized groups is defending human rights, and “only” 30% of Americans own guns, then why isn’t advocating for gun owners a defense of human rights?

And a followup: if members of these minoritized groups face threats of physical violence because of who they are, do the folks at Mindbridge really believe that they’re better off disarmed and defenseless? Shouldn’t they have the ability to protect themselves from those who would do them harm? Don’t they have the right to protect their lives?

The most obvious answer is that the folks at Mindbridge don’t think so. After all, it’s clear they want to denormalize and stigmatize gun owners. As they write in their call to action::

You don’t need to be a policymaker to help shift the culture. Start by challenging the myths: Most men don’t own guns, and most Americans support regulations like background checks. Share this truth in conversations, on social media, and in community spaces. Campaigns that highlight these facts, such as billboards or digital media stating “60% of American men don’t own a gun,” can help redefine what responsible citizenship looks like.

Got that? For Mindbridge, being a “responsible citizen” means not owning a gun. Which brings up another question: why bother pushing for things like “universal” background checks if they think that gun ownership itself is a problem?

The fundamental premise of their mindset is that, unless “both structural change and cultural transformation” surrounding gun ownership takes place, it’s impossible to “build a safer future.” That ignores the fact that violent crime is dropping at record levels at the moment, and 2025 is on pace for the lowest homicide rate in more than 60 years.

We are building a safer future (and a safer present as well), and we’re doing so while robustly exercising our right to bear arms… as well as our human right to self-defense.

Guilt-Trip Gun Control Advocacy Won’t Work, So Knock It Off

Over the years, I’ve seen a lot of calls for gun control from a lot of different sources. You’ve seen a lot, too, I suspect, and you’re not necessarily someone who has to seek them out to any degree. You can imagine how many I’ve seen.

A lot of them just sort of repeat what’s been said before. In fairness, we do the same thing, too. After all, it’s the same issue and nothing has really changed about where anyone stands.

But one thing has really gotten under my skin over the years, and that’s what I call “guilt-trip gun control advocacy.”

That’s when someone tries to make you feel terrible for not supporting gun control. They’re focusing on emotions, either your own or the emotional struggles of others, all to make you feel like you should have to support gun control.

It looks like this:

The news ticker denotes yet another shooting and fire, this time at a Latter-day Saint church in Michigan. This tragic incident occurred only weeks after the massacre at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, a tragedy whose shock had barely begun to fade from public memory.

Each headline was a fresh rupture in our collective psyche, each one a new entry in the ever-lengthening register of loss. I felt the same fatigue—the hollow, tightening ache of resignation. How many times can we say “not again” before the words’ meaning dissipates?

America has a peculiar way of justifying sin and bearing her scars. Our country’s response to violence is not just inadequate; it is complicit. We have constructed a body politic that tolerates, even sanctifies, these acts through legislative inertia and a distorted interpretation of constitutional rights.

The sacred text of our republic has become a shield for the status quo, with lawmakers and justices hiding behind its language to justify inaction. Leaders at every level offer only platitudes, as if thoughts and prayers could bind wounds that legislation refuses to heal.

Our nation’s dysfunction runs deeper than any one event or single perpetrator. Behind the headlines are the haunted: families who will never again feel whole, first responders who carry silent burdens, and clergy who must find words when language feels useless.

And behind them, a vast community of the traumatized—students, parents, teachers, neighbors—bound together not by choice but by the grim lottery of proximity. This is not the mark of a healthy society. It is the sign of a nation adrift, its soul eroded by violence and its conscience dulled by repetition.

Yes, we’re complicit in mass murder simply because we aren’t willing to give up our rights, even when many of these killers are people who should have been caught by some existing law and weren’t.

How dare anyone try to claim that I’m complicit, that I’m responsible, simply because I recognize the failures of gun control in the past? I’ve been one of those who will never feel whole again, because a dear friend was gunned down by a maniac who was pissed that he couldn’t sit in a coffee shop anymore after being a pain for the last time.

How dare anyone say that to our own Ryan Petty, who lost his lovely daughter Aliana in the Parkland shooting, or RedState’s Jenn Van Laar, who lost a friend in a shooting in Thousand Oaks?

We lost, and we recognized that gun control wasn’t the answer, but now we’re told everything that followed was really our fault because we didn’t bend the knee and give up our rights?

No.

This guilt-trip gun control push isn’t working. It’s never going to work. People don’t get told they’re complicit, that they’re responsible for mass murders, then just go, “Oh, well, OK. I’ll change all my views about everything.” They get angry and dig in even harder, which is fantastic for our side.

The writer of this screed, Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, describes himself as a “spiritual entrepreneur,” which sounds more like someone who uses faith to grift, if you ask me, but I’m not sure he understands that trying to guilt-trip someone isn’t really a great strategy.

Knock it off. You’re just making us mad and making yourself look like an absolute dipstick.

Why Armed Women Are Safer: What Gun Control Activists Won’t Admit

I recently read an email from Moms Demand Action that led with a chilling statistic: more than 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in the United States.

As someone who has spent the last several years teaching other women how to properly and safely use firearms, that number is heartbreaking. Every one of those stories is tragic. But what troubles me is how that statistic is being used to convince women that their safety depends on being disarmed, which is the opposite of empowerment.

Domestic violence is a horrific reality. I’ve looked into the eyes of women who’ve lived through it. Many of the women who come to my classes aren’t “gun people.” Some have never touched a firearm before. But they show up because they know that calling for help isn’t always enough when danger is already present inside the home.

As a matter of fact, I am a survivor of domestic violence. So, I hope that anyone who doubts my opinions or convictions on my personal right to keep and bear arms hears this message with absolute clarity.

The world is full of unexpected threats, not in the woods, but in our homes. Not strangers in dark alleys, but people we know.

Moms Demand Action claims that women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun. What they leave out is that a woman who is trained and prepared to defend herself with a firearm is far less likely to be a victim in the first place.

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I wanted nothing more than to own a handgun. However, my anti-gun home state had other things in mind, and I was legally prohibited from pursuing my concealed carry weapons permit as a means of self-protection, a tool that may have prevented my assault.

According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 90 percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against women are men. In terms of domestic violence, statistics show that at least 85 percent of domestic violence victims are women.

Domestic violence is a choice that abusers make, regardless of laws and prohibitions. Abusers choose to abuse. Guns don’t cause abuse. Abuse starts in the heart. Taking firearms away from law-abiding women doesn’t make violent men less dangerous; it only makes their targets less capable of fighting back.

I have no doubt that many members of groups like Moms Demand Action mean well. They use the language like “gun safety” and “preventing domestic violence.” But the leaders of that movement and the billionaires who fund them are making women less safe by restricting our ability to choose the most effective means of protection.

Almost every woman knows someone who has been a victim of abuse, if not having been one herself. Guns are not the cause of abuse. Abusers are. The tool doesn’t create the intent; it’s the intent that seeks out the tool.

Instead of promoting disarmament and dependency, we should be promoting empowerment. Gun owners already lead the way in safety training and responsible ownership. The statistics bear this out. With hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S., children under the age of five are far more likely to die from drowning, poisoning, suffocation, or auto accidents than from firearms.

Here’s what else they don’t tell you. The vast majority of defensive gun use never even makes the news. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention un the Obama administration has acknowledged that Americans use firearms defensively up to 3 million times every year. Most of those cases end without a shot being fired, because the presence of a gun stops the crime before it starts.

This October, during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I don’t want to see another campaign that paints women as helpless and firearms as the enemy. I want to see one that teaches women how to be their own first responders.

Because the real crisis isn’t that too many women own guns, it’s that too many women are told not to.

At Empowered 2A, a project of Gun Owners of America, we believe America needs more firearms education and training, not more fear. We need more women at the range learning safety, confidence, and accuracy, not more laws that make them criminals for wanting to live how they choose. And we need policymakers who trust women to make their own choices about their own defense.

Not every woman will make the same choices I have. Some will choose a firearm, others won’t. That choice should be hers alone, not that of Washington politicians who are surrounded by some of the best-armed security on the planet, with a billion-dollar annual price tag.

If Moms Demand Action truly wants to save women’s lives, they should start by trusting women with the same tools police officers rely on to protect themselves. Because our lives are no less valuable.

And to the women involved in Moms Demand Action, I’d ask you to consider what you’re asking the government to do. You are asking your own government to take away your best means of self-protection and trade our essential liberty for the false promise of safety.

This October, I will wear purple for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in hopes that more women stand up and defend themselves rather than be disarmed waiting for help that isn’t coming. I will also carry responsibly. Not because I want to use my firearm, but because I never want to need it and not have the choice.

Permitless Carry Permeates Across U.S., and Homicides Keep Falling at Record Rates

At the moment, we seem to be stuck on “29” when it comes to permitless carry states. The North Carolina legislature approved a permitless carry bill earlier this year, but it was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Josh Stein, and so far lawmakers have unsuccessful in obtaining a veto-proof majority in the state House.

Now a pair of lawmakers are hoping to make Wisconsin the 30th state in the nation to adopt a permitless carry law. State Sen. Andre Jacque state Rep. Chanz Green actually unveiled a few bills related to our right to bear arms this week, with their Constitutional Carry proposal serving as the centerpiece.

The proposals, circulated for cosponsorship Oct. 20, include making firearms, ammunition, crossbows and more merchandise exempt from sales tax each year on the Fourth of July and during the third week of December.

“Hunting, sport shooting and self-defense are deeply woven into the fabric of both our rural and urban communities,” the bill authors said.

Jacque and Green also proposed eliminating permit requirements for firearm owners who want to carry guns in a concealed fashion, known to supporters as constitutional carry. Under the bill, “law-abiding adults” wouldn’t need a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

… A third proposal authored by Green and Jacque would strengthen language in Article I of the state constitution, which establishes a right to keep and bear arms. That’s in addition to the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Currently, the section reads: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

The amendment would change that wording to: “The people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, which right shall never be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right, and any restriction on that right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

Constitutional amendments don’t require approval by the governor, though they do have to be approved in consecutive legislative sessions, so it’s possible that their last proposal will come to fruition.

Unfortunately, on permitless carry Jacque and Green are likely to run into the same issue that pro-2A lawmakers in North Carolina are facing: an anti-gun governor and the lack of a veto-proof majority to override his objections. In the Badger State, Gov. Tony Evers is a big supporter of putting more gun control laws on the books, and while Republicans control both chambers, they don’t have anywhere close to a veto-proof majority in either the House or Senate.

While that’s frustrating in terms of being able to pass pro-Second Amendment legislation, it also means that Democrats won’t have enough legislative support to deliver any gun control bills to the governor.

Democrats, meanwhile, want to expand training for the permits. That includes continuing firearm safety courses to renew their license every five years and requiring courses to provide information on gun storage and preventing accidental shootings.

That bill was part of a suicide prevention effort introduced in September in honor of Milwaukee Alderman Jonathan Brostoff. Another bill proposed a voluntary “do not sell” list for handguns.

Sen. Chris Larson, a Democrat from Milwaukee, said, “Wisconsin Republicans are trying to make our gun violence problem worse.”

Democrats keep insisting that permitless carry leads to chaos and carnage in the streets, but not a single one of the 29 states that have adopted the measure have seen fit to repeal the law. And violent crime is down dramatically in permitless carry Florida, where Miami recorded the fewest number of homicides in nearly 80 years last year.

In fact, crime analyst Jeff Asher says violent crime and homicides are falling at record rates, to the point that he predicts the FBI will report the lowest recorded homicide rate in our country’s history when the 2025 crime data is finalized. With permitless carry the law of the land in more than half the country, that simply wouldn’t be happening if the law led to huge spikes in crime as anti-gunners claim.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that permitless carry doesn’t lead to the “Wild West.” Sadly, none of it is likely to change Tony Evers’ mind if Wisconsin lawmakers do approve a bill next session.

FBI Continues To Publish Inaccurate Data On Armed Citizens Stopping Active Shooters

Few gun owners were surprised when we learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under President Joe Biden had fudged the numbers when reporting active shooters stopped by armed citizens. Now, however, the Trump Administration FBI is continuing the practice, far underreporting the number of incidents where armed citizens are the real heroes.

According to an October 2 report by John Lott posted at realclearinvestigatiins.com, the past trend of the FBI underreporting armed citizens who stopped active shooters continues to be a problem. And Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), said it’s not just a small discrepancy; the FBI is grossly underreporting the numbers.

“Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue,” Lott wrote. “In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse. Since RCI’s 2022 article, the FBI has acknowledged just three additional incidents of armed good Samaritans stopping active shooters from 2022 to 2024, and none in the last two years. In contrast, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, has documented 78 such cases over that same period—a 26-fold difference.”

The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual kills or attempts to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings that are related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. They include instances from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooting.

“In 2022, the FBI reported that only 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021, or 4.4%, were stopped by an armed citizen,” Lott wrote. “However, an analysis by my organization identified a total of 281 active shooter incidents during that same period and found that 41 of them—or 14.6%—were stopped by an armed citizen.”

As Lott further pointed out, the FBI report compiled for the Biden administration for 2023 and 2024 contains worse errors.

“It asserts that armed civilians stopped none of the 72 active shooting cases it identified,” he wrote. “The CPRC, by contrast, identified 121 active shooter cases—45 of which were ultimately halted by armed civilians. Those incidents included eight cases that likely would have resulted in mass public shootings with four or more people murdered.”

Ultimately, Lott said that the FBI has the ability to set the record straight in at least some cases, providing a clearer view of remedies to crime.

“But its unwillingness to correct errors—or its efforts to fix them on the sly, as RCI reported last year—and improve its methodology raises more concerns. Its shortcomings regarding armed citizens thwarting active shooters illuminate many of these problems.

Lott’s report at realclearinvestigations.com also delves into the dangerous fallacy of so-called “gun-free” zones. Those interested in learning more about the FBI’s underreporting of armed heroes and the danger of “gun-free” zones should give it a good read.

Florida Bill Will Make Churches Safer

My late father, a retired police officer and Freewill Baptist preacher’s son, wasn’t a fan of carrying in church. As a retired officer, he could, even though churches are off-limits here in Georgia. He just didn’t like it. He told me once that he didn’t believe carrying in church should be necessary, and it just felt wrong for him to do so.

At least, that’s how he felt until I reminded him that the world is full of goblins who don’t feel that way and see churches as targets.

The Annunciation Catholic School shooting is odd because it’s both a school shooting and a church shooting. While most of those attending mass that day were children, the truth was that they were left undefended during worship.

Church security has stopped mass shootings before. Most famously in White Settlement, Texas.

Now, Florida wants to make it easier to provide that kind of security.

A FloridaRepublican wants to make it easier for armed volunteers to provide security for churches and other houses of worship.

A bill, titled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” has been sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz and aims to waive some of the licensing and training requirements for individuals who want to volunteer to protect religious facilities.

Gaetz said that pastors in his district have asked for the measure, adding that smaller congregations typically don’t have the money to afford private security, FOX 13 reported.

Anyone hoping to volunteer will have to obtain a concealed carry permit, pass a level 2 background check, and secure approval from their local sheriff’s office before formally acting in a security capacity.

The bill specified that those acting as security via this method cannot be paid for their work, but it allows them to receive a “reasonable” reimbursement for their training costs.

It’s not a bad start.

I think a better move would be to just make it so anyone can lawfully carry in a church, then you don’t have to worry about the rest of the stuff. Those who mean harm will make it clear soon enough, and with an armed congregation, that will be a bad move.

However, I think there are a lot of ostensibly pro-gun people who somehow think people shouldn’t carry guns in churches–people like Dad–because it’s supposed to be a place of peace and worship. I sincerely understand that. I just repeat that not everyone feels that way, and far too many of those want to rack up a massive death toll.

Because of that, this might be the way to step forward without completely pushing those parties too far. When this turns out not to do any of the things the anti-gunners claim it will–and there will be claims of the church aisles running red with blood–then it becomes a bit easier to move that line a little farther down the road to where it should have been all along.

And, in the meantime, churches get a lot safer than they might otherwise be if they don’t have the resources to hire private security.

A Handgun is No Longer Enough: The Evolving Standard for Armed Self-Defense

The Sovereign Citizen and the Imminent Threat

The right enshrined in the Second Amendment was not a mere allowance for hunting or personal security; it was a profound constitutional imperative designed to ensure the survival of the republic.

Our Founding Fathers deliberately vested the ultimate responsibility for public safety and the nation’s defense in an armed, prepared citizenry they called the American Militia. They understood that the collective strength of the people, armed with common, readily available firearms, was the most resilient check against tyranny, invasion, and civil catastrophe.

As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stated, the right 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 usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.” Furthermore, James Madison argued that an armed citizenry, trained and ready, is “the best and most natural defense of a free country.” Their intent was clear: a free state is secured by a citizenry that is equipped to defend itself against the three distinct threats of tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic unrest.

Today, this core mandate remains profoundly true, especially in the face of alarming official warnings. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) recently issued a sobering advisory that the U.S.-designated terrorist group Al-Qaida and its Yemen-based affiliate (AQAP) remain intent on striking America. This is not a theoretical threat; it is a live intelligence concern.

READ MORE: US National Counterterrorism Center warns of threat from al Qaeda

This reality has been sharply articulated by law enforcement leaders. My local Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard K. Jones, reflecting on warnings from the FBI regarding imminent terrorist threats, stated, “The terrorists are here… it is just a matter of time before they attack. The national government can’t take care of it all. There are more local police than the FBI. It all comes down to preparing for it.” To meet this level of threat, preparation must surpass outdated standards.

Continue reading “”