Category: Safety

Live, Practice, and Compete from Concealment

There are over twenty million issued carry permits now in the United States, and bear in mind that this is in a nation that now has over half of the states honoring Constitutional Carry, thus requiring no permit at all to carry concealed. This is a good thing. On any given day, there are millions of American citizens carrying guns, and the majority of these guns are being carried concealed.

Despite these epic numbers, the amount of people who actually practice with their defensive firearm on a regular basis is depressingly small. Among even this small minority, the amount of people who practice from concealment, the way that most actually carry the gun, is even smaller. I have frequented many public ranges, and I rarely see anyone drawing from a holster, in general, even at ranges that allow it. And, while the unusual individual will be drawing from a holster, it is almost always an openly-worn holster rather than from concealment.

It is amazing that, while so many people have a carry permit, so few actually train with the gun from concealment. I realize that firearms are almost similar to automobiles in some regard; while most American adults drive a car, there are very few professional racecar drivers. At least with cars, most people actually drive, even if not at a high level. With firearms, it is far worse as even though a huge percentage of Americans not only own but carry a gun, few practice much with it, and far fewer practice realistically from concealment.

The ability to draw the gun from your concealed holster safely, efficiently, predictably, and quickly is the single most pressing skill directly related to using the gun itself in a defensive capacity, yet it is the skill least practiced by most concealed carriers. Those who take self-defense with a firearm seriously should devote considerable time to the craft of deploying the gun from a concealed holster, and there are a number of ways to maximize this proficiency within the limits of time that life imposes.

Continue reading “”

Armed Defense- They were Surprised, but they Responded and Saved Lives

Almost no one expects to be attacked. Yes, these honest gun owners were surprised, but they responded and saved lives.

These ordinary citizens faced a lethal threat. Again this week, these honest gun owners saved their lives and the lives of others.

The longer discussion of what we might want to do is on the Self Defense Gun Stories webpage. For now, here are the stories and the links to the original news sources. How will you protect the people you love?

Continue reading “”

Actually that doesn’t matter so much as long as I can be armed.

Move over Uber and Lyft; new rideshare app offers armed drivers

If  you’re a regular reader here at Bearing Arms, you’ve seen or heard me talk about Uber and Lyft’s driver (and passenger) disarmament policies that force contracted drivers to go unarmed in order to stay in the good graces of the companies. Even when drivers have been forced to use their gun in self-defense, they’ve been quickly cut loose from Uber and Lyft because they dared to have their legally-carried firearm with them while they’re doing a dangerous job.

Given the large number of carjackings, murders, and other targeted crimes against rideshare drivers, I find it unconscionable that these companies are putting drivers at risk by demanding they get behind the wheel without the means to defend themselves from an attack, and I refuse to use either platform until their policies change.
Admittedly, it’s easier for me to take that stand since I live in a rural area and have little need for a rideshare service to begin with, but I know that there are plenty of other gun owners out there who try to avoid these companies whenever possible.

Now we may soon have another choice, at least for those gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who live in New York and Atlanta. A new rideshare app called Black Wolf has just launched, and company founder Kerry KingBrown says riders can choose to have an armed driver behind the wheel if that’s what they prefer.

“Who are mostly on the news getting robbed, getting raped? The average person,” Brown told Atlanta News First. “What I’m creating is a necessary evil. It’s a necessity.”

In the week since it has launched, there have been some 80,000 downloads, according to Atlanta First News.

“Every Black Wolf App vehicle comes equipped with GPS Tracking and Live-streaming technology that allows our riders to share with their loved ones,” the company says on its Facebook page.

The app, which utilizes real-time data to let others know of the riders’ locations, charges a premium rate to ride with a driver who is armed.

Riders pay a base rate of $50 for an unarmed driver in addition to $1.75 per mile. A driver who is packing heat would set a rider back $60 as a base rate followed by a rate of $1.75 per mile.

The Black Wolf ride sharing app requires drivers to pass a background check and undergo training on how to handle a firearm as well as de-escalation.

Brown, a Long Island native, aspires to bring the service to the Big Apple — but New York City’s strict gun laws could complicate those plans.

He said that he is looking to enter the New York City market with help from a “connection” — a detective in the NYPD who has his own security company and provides training for drivers.

Brown acknowledged the strict gun laws that make it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a firearm.

It’s definitely going to be a challenge to bring Black Wolf to the Big Apple, but Brown has already launched a fleet of fifteen vehicles in Atlanta. The service may be more expensive than an UberX or a Lyft ride, but Brown is banking on the idea that many riders would prefer to have some extra security while they’re on the road.

I’ve reached out to Black Wolf and hope to bring Kerry KingBrown on Cam & Co in the near future to talk more about the company and his plans. It sounds like a worthy addition to the rideshare companies that are already operating, and a huge step forward for driver (and passenger) safety.

Four Reasons For The Crime Increase
Whenever Anyone Tells You Guns are the Reason for the Rise in Crime, Show Them This Article

Miss Swearer hits another home run

The entirety of the American system of government rests on two very simple yet profound premises—that every human being is endowed by our Creator with natural and unalienable rights, and that the only just end of government is to secure these rights for its citizens. Unfortunately, far too often, ill-considered progressive policies not only fail to adequately secure Americans’ natural rights from criminals who would undermine them, but actively worsen the problem by making it harder for peaceable citizens to defend themselves. Here are four specific policies that routinely make us all less safe and that, after crime rates predictably rise, are then used as excuses from gun-control proponents to further restrict our right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Gun Control: MORE GUNS, Not Less.

So the powers that be have made you terrified of a piece of metal and plastic that goes boom? Have you ever seen a gun jump up and shoot somebody all by itself? Of course not. What we should really be concerned about is the wrong people having guns, not taking guns away from people who will use them safely, responsibly, legally, and lawfully.

Aside from all the anti-gun propaganda, let’s look at the reality of things. First of all, there are not enough police officers to protect you and arrive on time. There is clearly no guarantee. And because these things are so sporadic, there is a greater guarantee that they will not arrive in time. We see in active shooter incidents that the police arrive after people have been killed at least 90% of the time. And that is based on a review of over 300 active shooter incident in the last 20 years in the United States. You can check the FBI data for yourself.

But before I leave this point, I would be remiss not to mention that 90% or more of the active shooter incidents have one thing in common. Nobody seems to have any firearm to protect themselves, or at least nobody fires back at the murderous active shooter. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude if people had firearms in such cases and they were trained to use them, the active shooters would not be able to do nearly as much damage.

Let’s look at another example. How many cases of police stations being robbed or shot up have you heard about? How many cases a police officers being car jacked have you heard about? Likely very few to none. But have you ever stopped to think about why that is? Let me tell you why. The primary reason is not because a criminal would be concerned about going to jail. The primary reason is because criminals know that police officers carry guns, and they are trained to use them. Therefore, a criminal attacking a police station has virtually no chance of getting out of there alive. That by itself is a huge deterrent to criminals.

Let’s look at another scenario. Out of incidents with 300 active shooters in America, less than 1/2 of one percent have happened on military bases in the United States. Why do you think that is? Partially because the military bases have tight security, especially entering the base. But a big reason for such low numbers of active shooter incidents on military bases is because these bases employ and house military personnel who are trained with weapons, and will not hesitate to use them to protect themselves and others. Armed and ready, or at least trained and prepared.

Let’s look at one more scenario before we get to the average citizen in America. Rewind back to the old west where at least practically every adult male capable of carrying a weapon did so in order to protect himself, his family and his home. Each man may not have been the fastest gun in the town, but maybe he was just fast enough in the right situation as he was prepared to protect his family. Or at least he was prepared to try.

Now let’s fast forward to today. Every major city in the United States from Miami to New York, Chicago to Atlanta, New Orleans to Dallas and so on has a severe shortage of law-enforcement officers on the streets. And even if these police departments were at full staff, there still would not be enough of them to protect anywhere near even 1/4 of the citizens, tourists and commuters.

Police officers, regardless of how much you hear “protect and serve”, are not bodyguards. As hard as many of them work, they are “law enforcement” officers, not public safety officers. And did you know that around 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled by a majority vote that local law enforcement officers were not responsible for the individual safety of citizens unless you were in their custody or there were special arrangements that had been made? Furthermore, many of you have heroes (the good cops) confused with superheroes who always arrive on time. Police officers are neither Iron Man, nor Superman, nor Flash nor Wonder Woman. Thus they are not able to arrive on time, every time, all the time.

This brings us to the average citizen in the United States. Someone is walking toward you on the highway with a gun because they are a mental road rage case. This is a random incident and you were not even involved in the incident where he or she has the road rage. You have spoken out against guns and you don’t like them, so you don’t have one. What do you do? Clearly, the police cannot be expected to arrive in time unless they are sitting on the highway right near where you are and happen to see what is transpiring.

Someone is breaking into your house in broad daylight while you are home, a home invasion that the FBI says statistically happens more in broad daylight. They have just kicked in the door. But you are so afraid of guns that you don’t even have one. What do you do? You could dial 911 and then tell the home invader to leave because you have called the police, even though you don’t know when they will arrive. And the criminal invading your home just might turn around and walk out the door, but not likely. So what do you do?

You are in a department store bathroom when you hear gunshots and you see everybody running into the bathroom where you are. Terror on their faces. Fear and in their hearts. The gunman is coming to the bathroom as he shoots people. You are unarmed, so what do you do?

In each of these cases, you can pray and run, maybe duck and hide. But the only thing that will protect you from a gun in the hands of a maniac at that moment is you having a firearm to protect yourself and being trained to use it.

I don’t say these things just to promote guns. I say these things, because in a country full of crime, guns serve a purpose in you protecting yourself. I don’t say these things because I am a firearms instructor. I don’t see these things because I have guns, including …  I don’t say these things because I am a former detective, executive protection agent, security expert, criminologist and retired Director of Public Safety. I say these things because they are true and once you realize that YOU have the PRIMARY responsibility to protect yourself, maybe you will start doing it.

Yes, there is a way to arm school teachers (selectively) without having incidents where Miss Mary left a loaded gun in her drawer and a student found it. I know because I wrote a plan on exactly how to do it. You may say that teachers are not the police. My response? First wake up to the world that we live in. And second, every day, millions upon millions of parents trust the teachers and the school with their children for education and safety. So let them provide both in a strategic, organized, responsible manner. It can be done, believe me.

The bottom line, whether you like guns or not, is that you and your family are the first line of defense in your safety. So it only makes sense that you are prepared to protect yourself, your family and your home. Especially when you don’t know what will happen, when or where. It’s time to wake up and stop being afraid of plastic and metal that can do nothing by itself.

A disarmed population is a population of sitting ducks just waiting for criminals to go duck hunting. And out of all the legislators and soccer moms and pastors and businesses that want to demonize and take the guns away, none of them are going to protect you and your family. It’s up to you. But if the criminal has a gun and you don’t, it’s up to them. And I don’t think they are going to do what is in your best interest.

‘We Want You to Be a Hero’: Sen. Hawley Warns How Daniel Penny’s Fate Could Affect Young Men

WATCH:

 

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The rush by the Left to vilify former Marine Daniel Penny before Americans have all the facts of his case could have a negative effect on American males’ willingness to be heroes, Sen. Josh Hawley said Thursday.

The Missouri Republican discussed Penny’s case during an interview with The Daily Signal about his new book, “Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs,” following news that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had charged Penny with second-degree manslaughter in the death in the New York subway of Jordan Neely.

The senator pointed out that the American people still don’t have all the facts and details necessary to understand the incident fully.

“This is a good example of the extremely confusing signals that the culture and the media and the Left send to young men, which is that you don’t hear much outrage on the Left … about the fact that New York subways and streets are extremely unsafe, and that if you are an everyday citizen walking or traveling, you may well be subject to violence,” Hawley said. “That’s just wiped away. We’re supposed to just live with that.”

But then, you’ve got a guy who actually puts himself in danger to try to help other people. You’ve got a subway passenger now saying, ‘He saved my life. He put himself in danger.’ That is automatically condemned before we even know all the facts. It’s like, ‘Oh, that must be wrong’ or ‘That must be crazy.’

Young men looking at this situation, Hawley said, will likely think, “Well, now, hold on. I thought that a man was supposed to be willing to put himself on the line. Isn’t that what we celebrate in the Greatest Generation, for example, a whole generation of young men who went out there and sacrificed for their country? But you’re telling me now, ‘If I do that, I’m going to be vilified, sued, charged, what have you.’”

As the criminal justice system plays out, Americans will learn the facts and the truth about what happened between Neely and Penny, Hawley said. But based on what is known?

Continue reading “”

The Left wants you to be too scared to stand up for your right to self-defense
Ingraham says DA Alvin Bragg wants to make an example out of Daniel Penny

LAURA INGRAHAM: Now, life is getting harder and it’s feeling more dangerous in the liberal utopias like San Francisco, where we just were, or L.A., Philly, Chicago — regular, sane people are getting tired of paying through the nose for a declining quality of life. And as we’ve seen in New York, well, they’re just deciding, “I’m going to pick up and move.” Now, seeing a lot of for lease signs — I have over the last few days — they’re hanging in all the office building windows. And one real estate expert is warning of a permanent collapse of real estate, commercial real estate, due to what’s being called an “urban doom loop.” Oh, my God. It sounds awful. Of course, who would want to make the trek into the city when it seems that criminals have the run of the place, especially with leftist prosecutors like New York’s Alvin Bragg in charge?

As a Soros-backed prosecutor, he doesn’t consider prosecuting career criminals a top priority. He considers a top priority to be hunting down heroes like subway Good Samaritan, Daniel Penny. That’s one of his most important missions. Now, Bragg wants to make an example out of Mr. Penny. And it’s something like this: Defend yourself or defend others, and you’re doing it at your own risk — the risk of prosecution.

And now things are getting worse. Bragg is widening the net. According to the New York Post tonight, investigators appear to have identified one of the two men seen on the video helping Penny. Now, the sources said authorities have been scouring surveillance footage looking for them. And so, I’m thinking to myself, do they simply want to question these two men as potential witnesses? Well, considering it’s Bragg, that’s doubtful. More likely he wants to bag a few accomplices, two more vigilante scalps on the wall. Now, this is a sick manhunt for two men who did nothing wrong. Two nights ago, we interviewed a woman who was brutally beaten in the subway. She told us things could have been different if someone like Mr. Penny was around.

Defending Law And Order Is Social Justice

What if the Good Samaritan had arrived a bit earlier? Would he have fought to protect the man who was being robbed and beaten nearly to death, or would he have worried that this would make him a “vigilante” with “bloodlust”?

Jamelle Bouie of The New York Times argues for the latter. Bouie is upset that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called Daniel Penny a Good Samaritan for defending his fellow subway passengers, and so he attempts an exegesis of Jesus’ famous parable in an effort to prove DeSantis wrong. As Bouie expounds, “[D]o we think that a modern-day good Samaritan would use lethal force or act as a vigilante in defense of order? Probably not. But the idea that he would — and that this is what it means to act either ethically or responsibly — is evidence enough of a sickness that festers in too many American hearts.”

Really? Jesus’ parable is not about when or if violence is morally justified. But unless one is prepared to argue for total pacifism, it is ludicrous to say that the Samaritan would have been obligated to do nothing if he had happened to walk by during the attack that ended with a man being left for dead by the side of the road. Bouie quotes Scripture not to argue that Penny acted precipitously or excessively in restraining Jordan Neely, a mentally ill drug user with a history of random violence who was acting like, well, a mentally ill drug user with a history of random violence. Rather, Bouie is suggesting it is wrong for citizens to defend themselves or others at all, and wrong to support them for doing so.

In this Bouie is, once again, not only wrong, but also self-defeating. Law and order are prerequisites for any positive vision, conservative or liberal, for America. An ideology that disdains order disdains the good of the citizens it aspires to rule, and will constantly sabotage its own stated goals.

Continue reading “”

The school wants to protect personnel and building info reported to be in it, so, okay redact stuff like that.

Nashville school tries to block shooter’s manifesto. Why?

The Covenant School in Nashville was the site of a horrific atrocity. That’s not even a matter of debate. Anyone who tries to claim it wasn’t is too delusional to waste your time on. We might have different takes on what happened, but we know and agree that it did.

What we also know is that the killer wrote a manifesto outlining what they planned and why. The public has been clamoring for it. We want to see inside the mind of a mass killer and see if we can figure out what makes people do these kinds of things.

The school, however, is trying to block the release.

Over the weekend, the Covenant Presbyterian Church and associated Covenant School filed a motion to block the public release of the manifesto of the transgender shooter who attacked the school, court documents revealed…

Monday court filings revealed that the Covenant Church requested that the court prevent the documents from being released to the public, citing privacy concerns.

The motion, filed against the Tennessee Firearms Association, and another filed against the Nashville Police Association stated that the manifesto “may include and/or relate to information owned by Covenant Church,” such as “schematics of church facilities and confidential information” regarding employees.

The church claimed the manifesto’s release could “impair or impede its ability to protect its interests and the privacy of its employees.”

A judge is scheduled to hear the church’s motion on Thursday.

I’m one of those who have wanted to read the manifesto. While many of us have suspicions as to the killer’s motives, I want to see for myself what the killer said. I want to know what was going on in that sick and twisted excuse for a mind.

So part of me hopes the manifesto is released.

However, the school in question has concerns, and I can’t dismiss them out of hand. After all, could this manifesto be used as a blueprint for Nashville Part 2? Could this reveal information that would be bad for the students and staff?

Then there’s what isn’t said, which is why another part of me hopes we don’t see the manifesto. That’s the part familiar with the idea of social contagion.

Basically, the premise is that the more we cover these kinds of things, the more they happen. It’s similar to when we see a rash of suicides anywhere. The first one happens, then the coverage and discussion plants the idea in other minds and you see more and more.

There’s a good chance that social contagion accounts for much of what we’ve seen over the last few years.

Releasing the manifesto would increase the coverage of Nashville, thus potentially leading to still more mass shootings elsewhere. Even if Nashville never sees another, there could be actual ramifications for releasing the manifesto that will cost lives.

That said, is there a middle ground?

For example, ignoring the whole social contagion thing–which may or may not be an issue–could a redacted manifesto be released to the public? Remove anything related to security or any mention of specific people related to the school and release the rest so as to alleviate security and privacy concerns, but still share the motivations of this demented monster.

Then we all get something out of this.

I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I just know that we need to figure something out and do it soon.

Guns in 42 Percent of Homes With More Female Owners than Ever.

More than 106 million American adults have at least one firearm in their home, according to a survey conducted in January and February by Responsive Management at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The figure indicates 42 percent of citizens 18 years of age or older have a firearm in their residence. More than 32 percent of the respondents personally own at least one gun.

Roughly a quarter of participants in the study, conducted by phone and on-line, spent at least one day target shooting during 2022—almost 60 percent of those with a firearm in their home. Another 6 percent of non-gun owners surveyed joined an acquaintance or family member for firing line sessions last year.

The survey notes, “In 2022, 17 percent of all shooters were new shooters. New shooters are those who started within the past 5 years. The rate of new shooters in 2022 is markedly higher than that of 2020 (when it was 12 percent) but is comparable to earlier surveys.”

In addition, the results defy mainstream media’s addition to the tired gun-owner stereotype. “New shooters are more likely to be Black, Democrats, Hispanic or Latino, younger, female, and from a large city or suburb,” the study found. “Compared to 2020, the percentage of new shooters who are Democrats nearly doubled, and there are large increases in the percentages of new shooters who are young, female and from a large city or suburban area….About a third of sport shooters in 2022 were female, the highest portion yet. This is up from 2009, when females made up just 25.8 percent of all sport shooters.”

The pursuit’s future is also a bright one. The survey’s authors also noted that, “In 2022, younger shooters made up the largest portion of shooters, whereas the largest share in every other survey year was the 35- to 54-year-old age group.”

Results of the study were weighted to reflect current U.S. Census data by state and region. Final sampling error came in at plus or minus 1.76 percent with a 95-percent confidence level in results.

Daydreaming the Guns Away

We find ourselves living in a highly consequential time for the legal clarification of the 2nd Amendment. Extremely aggressive, wide-ranging bans of semi-automatic firearms have been enacted in various parts of the country, drawing legal challenges. While the ultimate resolution of these challenges is unknowable, many observers believe the Supreme Court will eventually arrive at a decision prohibiting the wholesale banning of semi-automatic firearms. Those who dream of eliminating all private gun ownership in the United States face the prospect of a devastating legal defeat.

One can imagine their looming disappointment. They have failed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would effectively redefine the 2nd Amendment out of existence, and they are about to bear the consequences of that failure. But from their perspective, there is comfort to be had in the prospect of eventually stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution altogether, no matter how long it may take.

Such is the hope that animates aspiring intergenerational social reformer Allan Goldstein, who, in his “Let’s get serious and repeal the Second Amendment” has stepped forward to boldly launch a 50-plus year plan to eradicate all privately owned firearms in the United States.

Perhaps the piece might have been better entitled “Let’s Get Hysterical.” How galling it must be to be deprived of so obvious a good — a gun-free society — on account of something as frivolous as an obsolete, suicidally-construed constitutional amendment. On Goldstein’s account “[t]he Supreme Court has decided that ‘a well-regulated militia’ includes gang bangers and wild-eyed loners with a grudge.” What a shame Goldstein did not bother to provide a citation to the Supreme Court decision in which this is asserted.

Continue reading “”

Rasmussen: Gun Owners Feel Safer, Don’t Trust Govt. Enforcement

A new Rasmussen survey has revealed “Most gun owners say they feel safer with a firearm in the house, and don’t think the government can be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly.”

According to Rasmussen, only 29 percent of American Adults trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws, while 57 percent don’t, and another 14 percent are not sure.

Forty-two percent (42%) say they or someone in their household owns a gun – up from 37 percent in February 2022 – while 47 percent don’t live in gun-owning households, and 11 percent are not sure, the new report said. It’s not clear how those people aren’t sure someone in the household has a firearm.

The survey of 1,204 American Adults was conducted on April 30-May 2, 2023 by Rasmussen Reports with a margin of sampling error or +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Not surprisingly, Rasmussen’s new survey says more Republicans (51%) than Democrats (41%) or Independents (35%) live in gun-owning households. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats, 35% of Republicans and 50% of the unaffiliated say no one in their household owns a gun, Rasmussen said.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Independents don’t trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly.

This is not much different from earlier Rasmussen polling on guns, which suggests Americans aren’t shifting their values much on firearms even as times change.

According to the survey, “more men (49%) than women (36%) live in gun-owning households.”

“However, Rasmussen said, “women who do live in gun-own households are about equally likely as men to say they feel more safe because someone in their household owns a gun.”

More whites (48%) than blacks (35%) or other minorities (32%) live in gun-owning households, the survey revealed. Majorities of every racial category – 55 percent of whites, 61 percent of blacks and 58 percent of other minorities – don’t trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws.

Miss Swearer hit a line drive out of the park again

11 Defensive Gun Uses Show How Lawful Gun Owners ‘Get It Right’

Often lost in conversations about gun violence is the reality of who is responsible for the bulk of that violence. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners but by a small subset of repeat violent offenders who already are prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

At the same time, the vast majority of the nation’s millions of lawful gun owners will never use their firearms to harm themselves or others (excluding, of course, actions taken in lawful self-defense).

Nevertheless, sometimes people make questionable—or even downright abhorrent—decisions with their lawfully owned firearms. This was quite apparent in recent weeks as several gun owners made national headlines for all the wrong reasons, recklessly resorting to the use of lethal force when it likely wasn’t warranted.

Although these individuals rightly should have their actions scrutinized, the reality is that Americans with legally possessed guns are far more likely to “get it right” than they are to “get it wrong.”

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from past months and years. You also may follow @DailyDGU on Twitter for daily highlights of recent defensive gun uses.)

Continue reading “”

Well, you know the old lines about ducks and buffalo country, right?

Do Gun-Control Democrats Want Us Dead?

Modern politicians don’t ask to kill their opponents right away. There is a ladder of dehumanization to climb as they justify increasing levels of violence. We’ve heard Democrat politicians say that Republicans don’t care about killing children because the Republican legislators won’t pass more gun-control. Not only is that extremist rhetoric, it is murderously dangerous. Look at the facts and it seems gun-control Democrats really want more of us to die.

To quote Democrat Congressman Mike Thompson, “How many more kids need to get murdered before House Republican Leadership steps up and puts gun violence prevention legislation on the House calendar?”

The Democrat party news site DemCastUSA said, “Republicans ..block gun safety reforms while stoking hate. The GOP has blood on their hands while offering ‘Thoughts and Prayers’…”

Let’s look at what Democrat Politicians are asking for. This is what happens after honest citizens are disarmed.

Violent criminals commit about 1.2 million violent crimes a year (2019). Most criminals, about five-out-of-six, don’t use a gun in their violent crimes. In contrast, honest citizens use a firearm about 2.8 million times a year to stop death or great bodily injury. We don’t know how many of those defensive incidents would result in the victim’s death if they were disarmed. We can estimate the answer by assuming that criminals who attack disarmed victims are the same sort who attack armed victims. We are assuming that the criminals stay the same and only the actions of the victims change. That is overly simplistic, but it is a start. In fact, violent criminals become more violent when their victims become more vulnerable.

Here is an example to show you what I mean. If half of violent crimes were aggravated assaults, then we’ll assume that half of the attacks on the newly disarmed victims will remain as aggravated assaults. That may be wishful thinking since we don’t know how many aggravated assaults today were really attempted murders where a victim was able to reduce the severity of the attack because he was armed.

Violent criminals committed about 16.4-thousand murders in 2019. That is about 1.4-percent of the violent crimes. We now have 1.4 percent of what used to be armed defenses, about 38-thousand, now become new murders when the victims are disarmed by Democrat gun-control.

Gun-control Democrats more than tripled the number of murdered victims by disarming the good guys.

Continue reading “”

Bob McManus: Alvin Bragg didn’t trust a grand jury to do his bidding in Daniel Penny subway chokehold case.

Daniel Penny, the Marine Corps veteran who fatally subdued a deranged, threatening vagrant on the subway last week, was arraigned Friday on manslaughter charges in Criminal Court.

Anyone who expected differently in DA Alvin Bragg’s Manhattan hasn’t been paying attention.

Penny had put Jordan Neely, a career criminal who was terrorizing the F Train May 1, into a chokehold; Neely subsequently died — and thus the charges.

In less bizarre times — that is, before America lost its bearings on matters of crime, criminals, and simple justice itself — the case wouldn’t be complicated: A vagrant was menacing subway passengers, a straphanger reacted, the vagrant died — and a grand jury could be trusted to do the right thing.

But those days are history.

Continue reading “”

Some people have been saying this for years.

Robert F. Kennedy: It Looks Like Almost Every Mass Shooter Is On SSRI Drugs.

The whole show

I need to see a lot more about this law, what with those restrictions.

New West Virginia law allows nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals to carry a firearm

A new West Virginia law is in effect that allows medical professionals to carry a firearm.

The new law allows paramedics, nurses, doctors, EMTs, physician assistants, and osteopaths to carry a gun while responding to dangerous medical situations, but they would have to be accompanied by law enforcement.

Anyone that wants to be a “tactical medical professional” will have to complete a nationally recognized tactical medical training program. The law also requires medical professionals to get a certificate from the Law Enforcement Professional Subcommittee of the Governor’s Committee on Crime, Delinquency, and Correction.

“The medical professional would want to be able to carry a weapon,” said State Senate Majority Leader Tom Takubo (R-Kanawha). “They would have to then qualify to show that they are proficient and safe with that weapon. And then the law enforcement agency that they’re working with would also have to feel that they are qualified to carry a weapon. So, there’s a lot of protections. There’s a lot of training.”

This law does not allow doctors or nurses to carry firearms while working in the hospital nor can an EMT worker carry while on the job.

The new law is not a requirement for anyone in the medical field

Missouri: Time Running Out for Self-Defense Bill

The 2023 legislative session will soon draw to a close and the critical self-defense bill, House Bill 282, has still not been brought to the floor for a vote. Please contact Senate Majority Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin by phone, at 573-751-7985, and by clicking the button below, to ask her to please bring HB 282 to the floor for a vote.

House Bill 282 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Again, please contact Senate Majority Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin and ask her to please bring HB 282 to the floor for a vote.

but anyway, this is grandstanding because the demoncraps in the Senate won’t pass it and SloJoe out of partisan spite would veto it.

Federal Stand Your Ground Measure Coming Soon
While many states recognize the right to self-defense, there isn’t a national recognition of stand your ground measures. Hopefully, that will change soon.

We told you last month about how the Washington Post was trying to resurrect the debate over “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws even when the example the newspaper focused on wasn’t even a case involving SYG. What those anti-gun “journalists” at the Post didn’t realize was that their resurrection of the “debate” topic has fueled a fire on the other side of the gun-control movement, with two strongly pro-freedom federal lawmakers now planning to introduce a national Stand Your Ground measure in Congress.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, plan to introduce the measure soon. If passed, it would allow the use of deadly force to prevent “death or great bodily harm” without the duty to retreat that is still on the books in some states.

“States like Oklahoma and Florida recognize that in some cases, the use of lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm,” Sen. Mullin said in a news release announcing the measure. “Every American should have the right to defend himself or herself against imminent threats to personal safety without the duty to retreat.

“I’m proud to introduce the Stand Your Ground Act in the Senate to codify these common-sense self-defense protections for all law-abiding Americans.”

The legislation specifically states: “A person is justified in using, threatening, or attempting to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using, threatening, or attempting to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses, threatens, or attempts to use deadly force in accordance with this paragraph does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using, threatening, or attempting to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

The topic of Stand Your Ground came to the forefront recently when an elderly Missouri homeowner shot a young black man who allegedly came to the homeowner’s door mistakenly because of going to the wrong address. The incident had little to do with SYG and more to do with Castle Doctrine laws, yet many in the media used it as an excuse to trash SYG laws in the 30 states that have them on the books.

Two other incidents—one in New York, the other in Texas—shortly after the Missouri shooting caused further media consternation about SYG, even though such laws also weren’t applicable in either of those cases. Rep. Gaetz apparently took the sudden assault on SYG laws as an indicator that something needed to be done nationally, spawning his decision to author such a measure in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he serves on the Judiciary Committee.

“Every American has the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from an attacker,” Gaetz said. “If someone tries to kill you, you should have the right to return fire and preserve your life.”

It’s time to reaffirm in law what exists in our Constitution and in the hearts of our fellow Americans. We must abolish the legal duty of retreat everywhere.”