Category: Safety

Who wants more “gun-free” zones?

You must have seen the news stories about the attack outside a shopping mall in Texas. If you didn’t read the whole article, at least you scanned the headlines. It was awful that innocent people were attacked and many were killed. In response, some gun-control politicians said we should have more gun-free zones. That makes good headlines, and “gun-free” zones have the support of a surprising group of people. Like us, they just want to feel safe as they go about their business. Maybe you feel the same way, so let’s see if you agree.

Everyone wants to feel a degree of safety. Unfortunately, what makes one person feel safe might make the next person feel at risk. Let’s slow down and look at gun-free zones one step at a time.

We agree that it is easy to put up a plastic sign. Unfortunately, that thin plastic decal on a window doesn’t stop a murderer’s bullet. It might protect the business owner from legal liability, but does it do anything else? Come to think of it, the “sign” doesn’t even need to be a real object that is posted near the business’s doorway. It can be the words “No weapons allowed.” on the mall owner’s website somewhere. Does that make you feel safer?

I’m skeptical that the words on a website will stop a criminal. I don’t think that criminals check websites before they choose where to attack us.

Maybe you want real physical signs that say “No Guns Allowed” outside of every door. Maybe you want the business owner to wand everyone who enters the store just like they do to the audience at a rock concert. That means they need a security team at every entrance whenever the business is open. Maybe that means that there can only be one entrance. That sounds safer too. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out too well in practice.

One of our largest mass-murders was at a bar with two off-duty police officers who were checking people at the front entrance. The murderer shot his way inside past the guards. Once the murderer was inside, there was no way for the unarmed victims to escape. That attack went on for hours.

Maybe the facts don’t matter because we’re talking about what feels better. Maybe you want everyone disarmed because it makes you nervous to think that there are people around you who have guns. You are not alone.

Some people feel exactly the same way. I’ve read about them and how they felt. I’ve studied them. These people felt much safer where ordinary citizens were disarmed. They searched out “gun-free” zones. They were mass-murderers looking for easy victims.

Mass-murderers intensely search for “gun-free” zones so they can murder at will.

I’m not that smart, but even I can see a pattern here-

  • We saw mass murderers deliberately attack us in theaters that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us at county fairs that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in secure areas of airports that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in bars and restaurants that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in churches that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • Mass-murderers attacked us in grocery stores in towns where the police chief and sheriffs made sure that ordinary honest citizens were disarmed.
  • Mass-murderers also attacked us in schools that were called “gun-free” zones, and that is an interesting test case.

Schools are frequent targets of mass-murderers, but we have never seen a mass-murderer attempt to attack a school that had a program to train and arm school staff. I think that tells us a lot. It says that mass-murderers feel safer in “gun-free” zones. That certainly makes sense from their point of view, but it leaves us with other questions.

Why do people who are not mass-murderers feel safer in a gun free zone?

I’m not sure, but I have a guess. We know that mass-murderers target us in “gun-free” zones. The people who are afraid of guns would rather face the remote risk of a mass-murderer than be around their harmless neighbors who might be armed.

If I’m right, then that tells us a lot about the people who are afraid of their neighbors, but it doesn’t tell us much about guns.

This is a corollary of: ‘Familiarity breeds contempt’
You becomes so complacent, you no longer pay attention to the details that will keep you out of trouble.
It’s bad habits one has to continually work at to eliminate.

Ex-Rep. Cawthorn fined after guilty plea over gun at airport

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Former North Carolina U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor after his loaded gun was found last year in his carry-on luggage at Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

Mecklenburg County District Court Judge Cecilia Oseguera ordered a $250 fine but allowed Cawthorn to keep the 9 mm handgun that Transportation Security Administration agents seized at a checkpoint in April 2022, news outlets reported.

Prosecutors had wanted Cawthorn to have to relinquish the gun, but Oseguera said she saw nothing in the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon on city property that required him to give it up.

“I’m very happy and thankful that the judge gave a really clear ruling that sides with the law,” Cawthorn told reporters after the hearing.

Cawthorn, a Republican who served one term representing the 11th Congressional District in the mountains, previously admitted to having the gun at the airport and wrote on social media there was “no excuse” for his mistake.

Cawthorn also was found with an unloaded gun in 2021 while trying to get on a plane at Asheville Regional Airport. Airport police confiscated the gun but allowed him to board.

Cawthorn, from Henderson County, won election to Congress in 2020 at age 25 and became one of former President Donald Trump’s strongest supporters on Capitol Hill. He lost his 2022 GOP primary to Chuck Edwards, who went on to win the general elections.

Cawthorn told reporters Friday that he thinks he’ll return to politics one day but has no definite plans.

“I enjoy the position I’m in now,” said Cawthorn, who now has a home in Florida. “The world really is the oyster for the young.”

When You Don’t Police Crime, Civilians Will

This week, the media found its latest iteration of its favorite narrative: white man harms black man.

That iteration featured a 24-year-old white Marine from Queens attempting to suppress a 30-year-old homeless, psychotic black man, Jordan Neely, via use of a suppression hold. Neely was apparently threatening people on the subway when the Marine took him down from behind, keeping him in the suppression hold for 15 minutes; Neely died shortly thereafter.

The extraordinarily inflammatory and insipid Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., immediately rushed to Twitter in order to gin up outrage: “Jordan Neely was murdered. But bc Jordan was houseless and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents and stripping services to militarize itself while many in power demonize the poor, the murderer gets protected w/ passive headlines + no charges. It’s disgusting.”

Meanwhile, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine tweeted, “I saw Jordan Neely perform his Michael Jackson routine many times on the A train. He always made people smile. Our broken mental health system failed him. He deserved help, not to die in a chokehold on the floor of the subway.”

So, who was Neely? A career criminal. He wasn’t just shouting threats at passengers—he had been arrested more than 40 times in the past. Those arrests ranged from drugs to disorderly conduct to fare beating. When he died, he carried an outstanding warrant for assaulting a 67-year-old woman. A bevy of people apparently report that he had attempted to shove people onto subway tracks more than once.

Why was Neely out on the streets? It was clear to everyone that he was a mentally ill psychotic man with a serious drug record, a rap sheet longer than the phone book, and an alleged history of violent incidents. The answer is that the city of New York has decided no longer to prosecute crime. To do so might raise the unpalatable spectacle of racial disparity in crime statistics—and it is apparently more important to preserve egalitarianism in arrest statistics than to take active threats off the streets.

The consequences of such idiocy are dire, for both the general public and for people like Neely. How long can the authorities in New York expect everyday citizens to experience hostile and violent encounters before taking action?

Commentator Toure tweeted, “It is normal to see loud, disturbing mental breakdowns on the NYC subway. I’m not defending that; I’m saying it’s a regular occurrence. What’s not normal is to murder people having loud, disturbing mental breakdowns.”

But short of prophecy, how can those watching such a breakdown, complete with threats against others, know who is harmless and who isn’t? Normally such questions are outsourced to law enforcement. When law enforcement is prevented from doing its job, crime rises—and citizens are forced to engage in acts of self-defense.

All of this would be perfectly obvious were Neely white and the Marine black in this case; then, the media and political class would declare the Marine a hero for protecting others on the subway car. But the narrative must be preserved—the lie that crime by minority members must be ignored for the greater good of society, lest response to such crime facilitate systemic racism.

Often, it’s innocent victims who pay the price. In the case of Jordan Neely, it was the criminal himself, who never would have died were the system rational enough to have policed him decently years ago.

The Truth Behind “Children Killed by Guns”, Critical Analysis of Misleading Statistics & Hidden Agendas

U.S.A. — A recent article, “When ‘Children Killed by Guns’ are Not Children at All,” by Paul Valone, President of Grass Roots North Carolina, with contributions from Jim Parker and Sean Sorrentino, is an informative and insightful look into the propaganda and deception involved in the gun control debate.

The article examines the lies perpetuated by gun control advocates, such as the idea that “gun violence is the NUMBER ONE cause of death for children and teens in our country.” This honest and factual research dig details the truth about gun-related deaths and the ages, races, and circumstances surrounding them.

When ‘Children Killed By Guns’ Are Not Children At All

The first fake news lie addressed in the article is the definition of “children.” The article points out the obvious, to everyone but gun banners, that 18- and 19-year-olds are NOT children, yet gun control advocates include them in the statistics to inflate the numbers. The research also notes that the claim of ‘gun violence’ being the number one cause of death for children is FALSE, as the real statistics show that motor vehicle deaths are more common than gun-related deaths.

Actual and Accurate Total Deaths of Children 0-17 Source CDC WISQARS

Valone’s continued research delves further into the lie that all age groups are equally afflicted. The data from the CDC’s WISQARS system shows that in the 0-15 age range, the rate of motor vehicle deaths is 41% higher than gun-related deaths. However, when looking at 16- and 17-year-olds, the data reveals that firearm deaths by all intents exceed motor vehicle deaths, with a 29% difference.

Another Big Lie Exposed

Another lie exposed in the article is the claim that all demographics are equally afflicted. The article looks at the 16-17 age range and finds that when factored by race, blacks are 425% more likely to be killed by guns than whites.

This is an alarming statistic that is completely ignored by gun control advocates who push for blanket policies that do not address the root cause of gun violence in certain communities.

Hiding Reality

A chronic problem in the Fake News reporting on guns is “combining intents,” particularly suicide. Suicide rates are often used to inflate the numbers and justify gun control policies. However, the article notes that suicide is subject to the “substitution effect,” where people denied one means of suicide tend to substitute another. Japan, for example, has a high suicide rate despite a near-total prohibition on gun ownership.

The accurate statistics highlight who the real winner or, should we say, victims are. When it comes to homicide, blacks are the clear “winner” with a rate of 800% that of whites in the 16-17 age group.

The important article by Paul Valone, Jim Parker, and Sean Sorrentino is a well-researched and eye-opening look into the lies and propaganda surrounding gun control. The authors provide a data-driven analysis of gun-related deaths and the circumstances surrounding them. They reveal the truth behind the inflated statistics often used by gun control advocates to push their agenda.

The article is a must-read for anyone interested in the gun control debate and values honesty and accuracy in reporting.

Uniformed School Resource Officers Aren’t the Solution to Stop Mass Public Shootings

With six murdered at the Covenant School in Nashville at the end of March, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee proposed over $200 million in new measures to protect schools and prevent more such attacks. One of his proposals is to put “an armed security guard in every school in Tennessee.” Both Republican Senators from Tennessee have offered similar legislation in the form of the federal Safe Schools Act.

Governor Lee understandably wants to do something to prevent this type of violence from ever happening again. But allowing teachers to carry firearms in their classrooms is a much more effective and less costly solution. A bill advanced by a Tennessee state House committee last week would do just that.

Having an armed ally in a school could stop attacks. but identifiable officers are easily targeted.

“A deputy in uniform has an extremely difficult job in stopping these attacks,” noted Sarasota County, Florida, Sheriff Kurt Hoffman. “These terrorists have huge strategic advantages in determining the time and place of attacks. They can wait for a deputy to leave the area or pick an undefended location. Even when police or deputies are in the right place at the right time, those in uniform who can be readily identified as guards may as well be holding up neon signs saying, ‘Shoot me first.’ My deputies know that we cannot be everywhere.”

There’s a good reason air marshals on planes don’t wear uniforms.

If you have an armed officer in a school, don’t put him in uniform and make him readily identifiable. Give him a staff position in the school so it won’t be obvious that he is the one person with a gun.

The prospect of armed resistance deterred the Covenant School shooter from choosing another target. “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much

Unfortunately, no one at the Covenant school had a gun to fight back with.

These murderers count on gun-free zones to ensure they will be the only armed person. Last year, the Buffalo, NY shooter wrote in his manifesto: “Areas where CCW permits are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.”

Unfortunately, national media refuses to report such explicit statements by attackers. Nor do they report that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having guns.

 Violating gun-free school zones in Tennessee means a six-year prison term. While that is a severe penalty for law-abiding citizens, an additional six years for someone such as the Covenant school mass murderer is irrelevant, even if they had lived. The murderer would already be facing six life sentences or the death penalty.

 Twenty states already allow teachers and staff to carry concealed handguns. Any teacher with a concealed handgun permit can carry in Utah and New Hampshire. In other states, school boards or superintendents decide the policy.

 In the thousands of schools where teachers are permitted to carry, no one has been wounded or killed in an attack during school hours. Only at schools where guns are banned have people been hurt or killed in school shootings.

Other common concerns about allowing teachers to carry guns — such as students getting a hold of the weapons or teachers losing their tempers — have never actually occurred.

 Surveys show that criminologists and economists strongly support abolishing gun-free zones in places such as schools.

 President Biden is right that we shouldn’t impose security measures which make schools resemble prisons. There is another alternative. Instead of posting gun-free zone signs in front of schools, let’s post signs which warn attackers that there are teachers with concealed handguns.

Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of “Gun Control Myths.”

‘Times are changing,’ more women buying guns for self-defense

SAN ANTONIO – National data shows that more women are becoming gun owners. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, gun sales reached record highs in 2020, and women accounted for 40% of all sales.

Carmen Santana is a first-time gun buyer. She has been practicing at the Mission Ridge Shooting Range and Academy on the Northwest Side of San Antonio.

Camilla Rambaldi talks to women who have purchased and trained to use their guns.

“It was more toward protection than anything,” said Santana.

She started a self-defense firearm course six months ago.

“I have two little ones at home. Learning the proper way to handle it, the proper way to hold it,” explained Santana.

The Wall Street Journal reported nearly half of new U.S. gun buyers since the start of 2019 have been women, according to a new study. It’s an increase San Antonio gun ranges have also seen over the last few years.

“We have seen this rise in new gun ownership in women but also those who seek professional level training,” said Corey Molinelli, an instructor at Mission Ridge Shooting Range and Academy.

According to a 2017 Pew Research Survey, women are more likely than men to cite protection as the only reason to own a gun.

“We are getting more women interested in the sport itself of shooting but also the self-defense classes. We see single women who are recently divorced or have never been married and out are on their own,” added Molinelli.

“It’s unfortunate to think that women are coming into situations where they feel like they need to be armed more and more every day,” said Jennifer Knight, Director of Retail Development with U.S. Law Shield and Realtor.

In 2020, she came face to face with an intruder at home she was showing to a client. When they got to the home, she said there were several red flags.

“[We] quickly discovered that there was somebody else in the home with us. There was no real estate sign in the front yard; the grass was overgrown. When we walked into the home, there was an immediate smell,” explained Knight.

The experience motivated her to create a self-defense and situational awareness program for realtors. In 2021, Knight launched her program, Salty Grits.

“Be aware of your surroundings at all times, and don’t ever let your guard down,” said Knight.

The San Antonio mother is hoping her program can help empower other women who want to learn how to defend themselves.

“I think about us, banding together; I think about women helping women. If I could give advice to any woman, it would be never to allow your husband, boyfriend, father, or anybody else to purchase a firearm for you. You’re going to be the one who shoots it. You’re going to be the one carrying that firearm,” added Knight.

Back at the shooting range, Santana said she feels more confident.

“Comfortable. I feel more empowered,” added Santana.

Maine legislators consider expanding adult access to guns on school grounds for school safety

AUGUSTA, Maine —
With more than one mass shooting a day in America so far this year, including many in schools and on college campuses, Maine legislators are taking a closer look at improving school safety by potentially expanding adult access to guns on school grounds for self-defense.

One bill that underwent a public hearing before the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee on Wednesday, LD 52, would let teachers and other school staff be armed at school following police-style training to use their guns.

Since there’s never been a school shooting in Maine, the bill’s sponsor sees lessons learned in mass school shootings in other states.

“In all of them, a quick response time would have saved lives, if we had the right person there that knew what they were doing for an active shooter situation was willing, obviously, to be that person and did so,” Rep. Steve Foster, (R) Dexter, said in an interview. “My district has one school resource officer with four buildings. So, this whole bill is about an immediate or almost immediate response in a building, and if you look at some of these past incidents around the country, the response time was a big key issue, and that’s what this is hoping to address.”

Continue reading “”

People can lie all they want. I’m not disarming, and I’ll call such liars, a liar to their faces.

Lies Aimed at Disarming You

Lies come in many shapes and sizes. Some are simple exaggerations. Some are absurd falsehoods. Unfortunately, we tend to believe a bald lie if it is expressed with enough emotion. That outrage also keeps viewers watching and clicking so the press is often more interested in outrage than in the truth. A lie doesn’t become the truth if it is repeated, but the lie may help politicians get re-elected if it is repeated by enough likely voters. We need to call out every lie we see even if that means calling “respected elected officials” liars. Congressman Jamaal Brown, you lie. Representative Jimmy Gomez, you lie. You lie because you say you want to save lives, yet you pretend that more gun-control laws will actually protect our kids. That is a lie and I’ll prove it right now.

Why would politicians hide the truth behind their emotional outbursts? The simple answer is that politicians lie to get what they want. They want press coverage and campaign contributions. Democrat Congressman Jimmy Gomez of California said that Republicans should resign from office if they are not going to pass more gun-control legislation. Democrat Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York yelled at reporters that “Republicans won’t do sh-t when it comes to gun violence.” Implied is the lie that gun-control laws actually save lives, and that anyone who won’t pass more gun-control laws is either corrupt or heartless. Both claims are a lie. Maybe if their Democrat controlled cities weren’t so corrupt then there would be fewer young men shooting at each other on the streets of the congressman’s districts. I think gun control is a distraction from their many failures.

Gun-control costs lives and endangers our children in school. Before you can believe that you need to know that armed defense by ordinary citizens is common. We use a firearm to stop death or great bodily injury about 2.8 million times a year. That is over 4600 times a day. In addition, ordinary citizens with a gun prevented several million more crimes than that. Your armed neighbors probably stopped tens of thousands of murders. Armed citizens probably stopped over a hundred-thousand sexual assaults. These armed good guys stopped an immense about of harm. That is good, but our virtue doesn’t stop there.

We started to train and arm volunteer school staff a decade ago after the mass-murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. We have accumulated several thousand man-years of experience with these armed volunteers. You might have missed that their efforts worked in the best possible way: their mere presence prevented attacks at their school. Let me underline that for you.

We have never had a mass-murder at a school that had a program of trained and armed school staff.

Perspective is everything when we want to understand the truth. Only one-criminal-out-of-six uses a firearm in the commission of a violent crime. Criminals use firearms about a quarter-million times each year and they violate our “gun-control” laws millions of times each year. That means that gun control is a failure. In contrast, we defend ourselves with a firearm about 2.8 million times every year. Mass murderers take about 600 lives a year. We protected hundreds of thousands of our children with armed school volunteers. If you haven’t heard it before then I’m telling you now, armed defense is much more common than the criminal use of a firearm.

Gun-control politicians say their laws disarm criminals. In fact, their 23-thousand gun-control regulations disarm far more honest citizens than criminals. Mass murderers deliberately attack us in gun-free zones where we are disarmed by law.

Politicians and the news media don’t tell us everything we need to know to make a reasoned decision. It is deadly public policy to solve a small problem by creating a larger one. We can’t save hundreds of lives by sacrificing tens-of-thousands. If we really want to save lives, then we’d repeal our gun-control laws rather than passing more of them. That won’t work for gun-control politicians who need to shout in public to get reelected. If gun-control advocates really wanted to save lives, then they would stop lying.

How many more innocent lives should we sacrifice on the altar of gun-control?

I’m giving you facts, but facts don’t matter to gun-control ideologues. For them, the ideal of gun-control is an end in itself rather than an instrumental means to save lives. Mass murders are simply an excuse to disarm more honest citizens.

I am not running for office, but I am trying to influence your opinion. Lies matter when we want to deceive. Facts matter when we want to save lives. Time and again, Democrats and Socialists in the USA have said that only Democrats care about children, and everyone else doesn’t care if kids die. I’m calling that a lie. Lives matter to me and they matter to you.

It is uncomfortable to call someone a liar but it gets easier with practice. I did it this time. I’m asking you to do it the next time you hear them lie about us.

Standing Your Ground Is A Constitutional Right

There’s a problem in our society when people face prosecution for defending themselves in public, and when a major network props up an anti-gun activist on Sunday morning television to ridicule the basic right to self-defense with lies and rhetoric, the underlying issue and our rights at large as Americans face even greater peril.

Unfortunately, that scenario is exactly what America got this past weekend when ABC’s Martha Raddatz held a discussion with a Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence attorney on “stand your ground” laws, in which the so-called expert blatantly lied on the air claiming these statutes and precedents “upend centuries of common law on self-defense and allow people to carry guns outside of the home…” This is utter nonsense.

Instead, while she briefly alluded to it on air, this so-called “expert on state gun laws” clearly is a supporter of the ludicrous “duty to retreat” laws that many leftist states still maintain. Despite the recent reinforcement of the inherent right to self-defense in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, these statutes, as their names suggest, require citizens, when faced with a seemingly life-threatening situation, to determine whether they can refrain from the use of deadly force by essentially running away. Further, a citizen who uses deadly force — even when threatened — could lose a claim to self-defense and potentially be charged with a crime, up to and including homicide, if it’s determined that a “retreat” should have been made.

Continue reading “”

Why Is Concealed Carry So Important In Modern America?

Concealed carry, or the practice of carrying a concealed firearm on one’s person, is a contentious topic in modern society. Some argue that it is necessary for personal protection, while others believe that it only serves to increase the likelihood of gun violence. However, there are many reasons why concealed carry is important and can be a valuable tool for self-defense.

First and foremost, concealed carry can provide a means of self-defense for law-abiding citizens. The world can be a dangerous place, and individuals who carry a concealed firearm have the ability to defend themselves if they are ever confronted with a dangerous situation. This is especially important for those who live in areas with high rates of crime or who work in professions that put them at risk, although trouble can and is found in even the safest of places.

In addition, concealed carry can act as a deterrent to criminals. The knowledge that a potential victim may be carrying a concealed firearm can dissuade criminals from attempting to commit crimes in the first place. This can help to create a safer environment for everyone, as criminals are less likely to engage in criminal activity when they know that there is a possibility that their intended victim may be armed.

Concealed carry can also be beneficial in situations where law enforcement response times may be slow. In an emergency situation, every second counts, and individuals who are carrying a concealed firearm can act as first responders to protect themselves and those around them. This can be especially important in rural areas, where law enforcement may be several miles away and response times may be longer.

Moreover, concealed carry is an important tool for protecting one’s home and family. A firearm is one of the most effective means of self-defense against an intruder, and having a firearm readily available can help to ensure the safety of one’s loved ones.

Finally, concealed carry is a constitutionally protected right in the United States. The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and this right extends to the carrying of concealed firearms. The ability to exercise this right is important for many Americans, who feel that it is their duty to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

Of course, with the right to carry a concealed firearm comes the responsibility to use it wisely and safely. It is important for those who carry a concealed firearm to receive proper training and to understand the laws surrounding the use of deadly force. Additionally, individuals who carry a concealed firearm must be prepared to face the consequences of their actions if they ever do use their firearm in self-defense.

In conclusion, concealed carry is an important tool for self-defense and can provide a means of protection for law-abiding citizens. It can act as a deterrent to criminals, serve as a first response in emergency situations, protect one’s home and family, and is a constitutionally protected right. While carrying a concealed firearm is a serious responsibility, it can be a valuable tool in creating a safer environment for everyone.

 

If You Want Fewer Shootings, Ask Politicians To Back Off

Headlines feature grim reports of senseless violence, including the wounding of Ralph Yarl in Kansas City, Missouri, the killing of Kaylin Gillis in Hebron, New York, and shootings of Payton Washington and Heather Roth in Elgin, Texas, and of 6-year-old Kinsley White and her parents in Gaston County, North Carolina. We’ll learn more in days to come, but the incidents seem the results of irrational fear and rage.

These incidents feed the usual debates, with “reformers” promoting gun restrictions or criticizing “stand your ground” self-defense laws. But while the impulse to do something is understandable, these eruptions of violence come after decades of plummeting crime that coincided with increasing firearms ownership and eased laws. Something changed: us. Boosted by bad pandemic policies, already agitated Americans became nuttier and more prone to conflict. Politicians and laws can’t fix that.

“In an era of frequent mass shootings, Americans know all too well that tragedy lurks nearly everywhere: schools, churches, offices, grocery stores, movie theaters. But these three incidents in the span of just six days have deepened a gnawing sense that no place is truly safe,” NBC News’s Daniel Arkin reported this week. “The incidents have renewed and intensified calls for stricter gun control legislation” and “have also put scrutiny on ‘stand your ground’ self-defense laws.”

Misunderstood America

Arkin captures the horror of such incidents, but he also neatly distills misunderstandings behind our debates. Of the incidents he describes, none really invoke stand your ground laws, under which people have no duty to retreat before defending themselves in public places. Yarl and Gillis were at their shooters’ homes which, if the shootings were justified, involves the common-law castle doctrine right to defend yourself at your dwelling. Washington and Roth (and White and her parents, whose case came after Arkin’s piece) were chased by their assailants, which isn’t self-defense by any understanding. Whatever the principles, and no matter the legislation, states allowed self-defense and people purchased firearms over the course of decades during which crime declined.

“Both the FBI and [Bureau of Justice Statistics] data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation,” Pew Research Center noted in November 2020, less than three years ago.

If we were well-armed and had wide freedom to defend ourselves while enjoying 30 years of plummeting crime what, if anything, changed?

“In the eyes of some observers, the shootings point to a more fundamental sickness in American life: the toxic brew of paranoia, distrust and suspicion that poisons so many of our day-to-day interactions,” Arkin adds. Unfortunately, the data supports his point.

We’re Nuttier

“Nine out of 10 adults said ​they believed that there’s a mental health crisis in the US today,” CNN reported last October of a poll conducted jointly with the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Nearly 8 in 10 psychologists (79%) said that they had seen an increase in the number of patients with anxiety disorders since the beginning of the pandemic, and 66% saw an increase in demand for treatment for depression. Nearly half (47%) said they had seen an increase in demand for substance use treatment (up from 43% last year) and 64% saw an increase in demand for trauma treatment, (compared with 62% in 2021),” the American Psychological Association reported just one month later.

It’s easy to find evidence that people have become nuttier since we first heard the term “COVID-19.” Fear of illness and death, added to forced isolation and economic disruption, made people very antsy.

Pandemic Policy Broke Us

“My colleagues and I conducted a review of all of the studies on mental health conducted during the first year of the pandemic,” social psychology Professor Gery Karantzas of Australia’s Deakin University wrote last year. “We found that overall, social restrictions doubled people’s odds of experiencing mental health symptoms… Those who experienced lockdowns were twice as likely to experience mental ill health than those who didn’t.”

“Societal and lifestyle disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic may have triggered brain inflammation that could affect mental health,” Harvard researchers found. “Brain imaging revealed that people tested after pandemic restrictions had elevated levels of two markers of neuroinflammation—translocator protein and myoinositol—compared with those tested prior to restrictions.”

That’s not to say that we were doing great before the pandemic. America’s social and political divisions are the stuff of modern legend.

Well, Pandemic Policy Broke Us More

“Do Americans hate each other too much to find common ground?” the Los Angeles Times asked in 2017. “Large majorities of Americans say the tone and nature of political debate in the United States has become more negative in recent years,” Pew Research noted in 2019.

Two years later, Pew found that “a large majority of Americans say there are strong political and strong racial and ethnic conflicts in the U.S. and that most people disagree on basic facts.”

These conflicts came amidst collapsing trust by Americans in institutions and in each other. By this year, the Edelman Trust Barometer reported that only 30 percent of respondents would help those with whom they strongly disagreed; 20 percent would be willing to have them as coworkers or neighbors.

People have turned against one another and become more fearful. More than half tell pollsters they believe crime increased where they live. The data isn’t as ominous so far, finding “violent and property crime remained consistent between 2020 and 2021” as the FBI put it in December. But those numbers are old and at odds with headlines about senseless shootings, as well as reports of shoplifting, muggings, and businesses abandoning city centers. People act on what they see, not on aging crime statistics.

Spare Us Another Dose of Policy

Some lawmakers and activists see a nuttier and more conflicted country as requiring tighter control. But even before we grew more anxious and hostile, Americans were never prone to obey restrictive laws. New York’s registration requirement for “assault weapons” drew maybe 5 percent compliance not quite a decade ago. Today’s Americans who distrust government and each other aren’t going to submit to new dictates or put themselves at the mercy of a world they view as dangerous.

Let’s not forget that disagreements over the means of control—our political institutions—were already sources of division and conflict well before COVID-19. Tighter laws in the form of pandemic lockdowns exacerbated those tensions, made us all crazier and more hostile, and brought us to a moment dominated by headlines about senseless shootings and other crimes.

What we might need is less top-down control and fewer restrictive laws in order to reduce the points of conflict. But I doubt that improvements will come easily or quickly. It took years to break our society; we’ll be a long time making repairs.

Hint: ‘Cash is still King’
(and $500 won’t go as far as you might think it does)

SO, SHOPPING AT THE FRESH MARKET TONIGHT, we were among the very few to buy groceries, because their computer network was down and they couldn’t process credit or debit cards.
They couldn’t even accept checks because those are run through an ACH payment system rather than deposited in the old way.
We, however, were able to pay and get out, something only a couple of other customers could do.
One older guy, and a couple of teenaged girls who said “we rock it old school with cash,” which I thought was hilarious.
Most people didn’t carry enough cash for groceries.

2 lessons:
(1) The “cashless society” is less robust than cash; and
(2) Always carry enough cash to buy groceries, a meal out, and a tank of gas. Just in case.
–Glenn Reynolds

Prof. Yamane misunderstands one part of self defense law in Missouri when he states: “From where I stand, shooting someone through the locked glass of your front door.…does not rise to the reasonableness standard required by self-defense law.”   Well, under Missouri revised statutes 563.031
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person;
In effect you can do exactly that to stop someone who’s trying to get in to where you are. That’s what a lot of people fail to take in account; each state’s laws on use of force may be very similar, but they are not all the same.

Stand Your Ground laws do not allow you to ‘shoot first and ask questions later’

Three recent shootings have, understandably, raised concerns about the legality of using lethal force in self-defense. Sixteen-year-old Ralph Yarl was injured after approaching the wrong house in Kansas City while trying to pick up his siblings. Twenty-year-old Kaylin Gillis was killed after a car she was riding in pulled into the wrong driveway in upstate New York. And two teenage cheerleaders were shot in Austin, Texas, after one of them got into the wrong car in a grocery store parking lot.

Gun violence prevention advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action have used these events to renew criticisms of Stand Your Ground laws for emboldening people “to shoot to kill & claim self-defense.” Everytown even goes so far as to say these laws “give people a license to kill.”

These groups and even scholars studying gun violence refer to Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws as “shoot first” laws, short for “shoot first and ask questions later.” As a gun scholar, gun owner and opponent of gun violence, I fear that equating SYG with the legal right to “shoot first” could unintentionally mislead people into thinking that self-defense laws truly give them a blanket license to kill with impunity.

They do not.

Self-defense laws actually place significant limits on the ability of individuals to use lethal force in self-defense lawfully. Whether people fully understand those limitations is an empirical question, but critics should drop the language of “shoot first” in referring to these laws. Instead, in the interest of public safety, why not educate people on the limited range of behaviors they in fact allow?

First, the shootings of Ralph Yarl and Kaylin Gillis took place at the shooters’ homes, not in public spaces. Therefore, SYG law does not apply to these cases. (Not to mention that New York does not even have a SYG law.) If anything, they would fall under the common-law principle of “castle doctrine,” which allows people to use reasonable force — up to and including lethal force — to protect themselves and their loved ones at home. It allows people to stand their ground in their own “castle.”

SYG laws can be understood as extending castle doctrine into public space. They apply, in the language of Florida’s landmark law, to any individual “who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be.” These are significant limitations in themselves. Someone mistakenly getting into your car and then immediately exiting cannot reasonably be considered an attack, so no lawful acts of self-defense are justified. The shooting in the Austin grocery store parking lot looks much more like an act of criminal assault.

Second, even under SYG, all the other legal requirements for using lethal force in self-defense still apply. In addition to innocence, there is the issue of proportionality: A person only has a right to “meet force with force, including deadly force.” This also highlights that the individual claiming self-defense must establish their reasonableness. The person must convince a prosecutor or a jury that other reasonable people in the same circumstances would similarly believe they were in danger of death or great bodily harm.

From where I stand, shooting someone through the locked glass of your front door or at a car in your driveway does not rise to the reasonableness standard required by self-defense law. These cases are reminiscent of the killings of Renisha McBride in Detroit and Jordan Davis in Jacksonville. Both shooters claimed self-defense but are now incarcerated for murder.

Reasonableness, of course, is determined in the criminal justice system, which is marred by racial inequality. But the flawed application of law and a flawed law are not the same. People of goodwill can disagree about whether Stand Your Ground laws are, on balance, good or bad. But both gun owners and non-owners must understand what self-defense laws actually allow and prohibit — politically charged rhetoric like “shoot first” is harmful.

Stand Your Ground does not allow anyone to “shoot first and ask questions later.” Not within the law, at least. Please stop saying it does.

ICYMI CDC Study Findings Show Americans with Guns Very Effective at Stopping Crime

Washington, DC – Remember that time a report from 2013 commissioned by President Barack Obama, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the use of firearms for self-defense was and is a significant crime deterrent?

The report, titled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” * notes that most firearm incidents do not result in a fatality and that violent crimes, including homicides, have declined in the past five years. It also highlights that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.

The 2013 report expressed uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that there is no evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violent crimes and that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.” Instead, the CDC report proposes gun safety technologies such as “external locking devices and biometric systems” to reduce firearm-related deaths.

Commenting at the time, John Frazer, from the National Rifle Association, had this to say;

“I thought it was very telling that this report focused so heavily on . . . futuristic technology that’s not been brought to the market in any kind of reliable form that consumers have any interest in,” said John Frazer, director of research and information at the National Rifle Association (NRA).”

“These “smart gun” technologies are “designed to prevent misuse, to prevent either accidents or crimes committed with stolen guns,” Frazer noted. “Obviously it wouldn’t have any effect on crimes committed with a gun purchased by the criminal. It obviously wouldn’t have any effect on suicides by people who bought the guns themselves.” However, “it could have a huge burden on self-defense rights of law-abiding people if they’re forced to use an unproven technology.”

The CDC’s findings that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal could affect the future of gun violence research.

However, there has been criticism of the study from some quarters, with concerns expressed that the research may be used to promote gun control.

“The anti-gun researchers out there who want to study and promote gun control are perfectly free to get funded to do that by [New York] Mayor Bloomberg or by any number of other organizations or foundations,” said Frazer. “It depends on who’s doing the research. I would be very concerned that a lot of the follow-up research that might come from this agenda would be more of what we’ve seen from the anti-gun public health establishment in the past.”

The report establishes guidelines meant only for future “taxpayer-funded research,” Frazer said. At the time, the Annie E. Casey Foundation issued a statement reaffirming its support for the study, which “is in keeping with our work to collaborate with public agencies, nonprofit organizations, policymakers, and community leaders to make a positive impact on the lives of kids, families, and communities.” Other supporters of the CDC study include The California Endowment, The Joyce Foundation, on whose Board of Directors Obama served for eight years prior to his Senate run, and Kaiser Permanente, which contributed over half a million dollars to his presidential campaigns.

The report highlights that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide.

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

This review of the CDC study underscores the importance of firearms for self-defense and as a crime deterrent. It recommends gun safety technologies as a means of reducing firearm-related deaths, rather than gun control measures. Despite the findings in his report, we can most certainly count on the biased MSM to only promote gun control as a solution to the out-of-control crime in 2023.

*Source “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”

‘Our Schools Will No Longer Be Soft Targets’: Tiny Rural Ohio Town Lets Staff Arm Themselves

An Ohio school district centered in a tiny town of 560 people has responded to recent school shootings by permitting its teachers to be armed.

River Valley Local School District in Caledonia, which has roughly 2,000 students from around the area, citing a law signed by Governor Mike DeWine in June 2022, said it will allow staff members in its high school, middle school, Heritage, and Liberty elementary schools to arm themselves.

“Our schools will no longer be soft targets and unprotected,” Superintendent Adam Wickham told The Marion Star. “Most active-shooter events occur in areas of ‘gun-free zones’ or with minimal safety measures in place. We want to ensure our schools will not be soft targets.”

“As a rural community, response times can often be minutes away in the event of an active shooter,” he continued. “The use of armed staff in our buildings can potentially save lives by providing a more immediate response to the threat. Recent school shootings such as in Nashville, Uvalde (Texas), and Parkland (Florida) clearly show that the quicker the response time, the more likely you are to potentially save lives.”

Wickham noted that the River Valley Local Schools policy has more stringent training than state requirements.

The bill DeWine signed, House Bill 99, states that it “allows the previous practice of permitting school boards to choose to arm specific staff members and mandates reasonable training requirements for those individuals.”

“Some have expressed questions about the training and selection process,” Wickham acknowledged. “The vast majority of parents have expressed appreciation for the proactive approach in protecting their children. That is really a main reason for adopting the use of armed staff. While we understand not everyone will support this program, every safety measure we take at River Valley, including the use of armed staff, is put in place to try and ensure our staff and students can go home safely to their families and loved ones, each and every day.”

“The River Valley Board had previously approved the use of armed staff for the 2020-21 school year,” Wickham said. “At that time the use of armed staff for the 2020-21 school year was confidential as protected by Ohio law, as part of the district’s safety plan. School districts had to suspend the use of armed staff with the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in the summer of 2021. Once HB 99 was passed, training details were released by the state in December of 2022, I recommended to the board resuming this program and the board approved the use of armed staff at the Jan. 12, 2023, meeting.”

Guns and Control: A Nonpartisan Guide to Understanding Mass Public Shootings, Gun Accidents, Crime, Public Carry, Suicides, Defensive Use, and More

A Nonpartisan guide that arms both sides of the gun control debate.

The slogan of the Gun Facts Project is “We are neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. We are pro-math and anti-BS.” From project creator Guy Smith comes Guns and Control: A Nonpartisan Guide to Mass Public Shootings, Gun Accidents, Crime, Public Carry, Suicides, Defensive Use, and More. 

No matter what side of the aisle one is on, people are baffled by gun control. This book is designed to be a guide to thoughtful discussion; it arms readers with facts and the logic behind conflicting arguments and leaves emotional rhetoric to the pundits and focuses on the thorny issues of the debate.
Guns and Control will:

• Guide readers step-wise through each of the major gun control topics: mass public shootings, assault weapons, street crime, suicide, private carry, defensive gun use, gun availability, and more.
• Help readers gain the broad perspective and the full set of important, true facts, just in time for the 2020 Presidential Election.
• Arm readers against some of the more egregious misinformation.
• Support readers in formulating their own conclusions.

Guns and Control will grant high-level perspectives—for example, that mass public shootings are a global phenomenon, occurring in nearly all developed nations—and explore details to understand the causes, and thus possible cures, of gun violence-related problems. Was the push for de-institutionalization in mental health management a contributing factor to the rise in mass public shootings? Guns and Control will help readers find answers to such questions. What the public lacks is a clear, unbiased, broad perspective on the realities of guns, explained in simple, straightforward, and entertaining ways. Guns and Control will demystify these misunderstood aspects of who uses and misuses guns.