Man Fought off a Mountain Lion Weeks Before a Suspected Fatal Colorado Attack
A suspected deadly mountain lion attack on New Year’s Day that killed a woman hiking alone was preceded by another harrowing encounter in the same area

A solo hiker who authorities believe was killed by a mountain lion on a remote Colorado trail on New Year’s Day was not the first person to encounter one of the predators in the area in recent weeks.

Gary Messina said he was running along the same trail on a dark November morning when his headlamp caught the gleam of two eyes in the nearby brush. Messina used his phone to snap a quick photo before a mountain lion rushed him.

Messina said he threw the phone at the animal, kicked dirt and yelled as the lion kept trying to circle behind him. After a couple of harrowing minutes he broke a bat-sized stick off a downed log, hit the lion in the head with it and it ran off, he said.

The woman whose body was found Thursday on the same Crosier Mountain trail had “wounds consistent with a mountain lion attack,” said Kara Van Hoose with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. An autopsy is scheduled for next week, said Rafael Moreno with the Larimer County Coroner’s Office.

Prior warnings and the hunt for a culprit

Wildlife officials late Thursday tracked down and killed two mountain lions in the area — one at the scene and another nearby. A necropsy will help determine if either or both of those animals attacked the woman and whether they had neurological diseases such as rabies or avian flu.

A search for a third mountain lion reported in the area was ongoing Friday, Van Hoose said. Nearby trails remained closed while the hunt continued. Van Hoose said circumstances would dictate whether that lion is also killed.

Based on the aggressiveness of the animal that attacked him on Nov. 11, Messina suspects it could be the same one that killed the woman on New Year’s Day.

“I had to fight it off because it was basically trying to maul me,” Messina told The Associated Press. “I was scared for my life and I wasn’t able to escape. I tried backing up and it would try to lunge at me.”

Continue reading “”

The Trace Tries Desperately to Make ‘Gun Violence’ Numbers Look Bad

This year, we’ve seen a significant downturn in so-called gun violence. While some like to say we’re just rebounding from the pandemic spike, the truth is that this seems to be a bit more. It’s been a good year, all things considered, though maybe not enough to reach levels akin to other developed nations.

Then again, when you take guns out of the equation, we’re still more violent than those countries, so I’m not really going to expect that to change anytime soon.

At The Trace, though, they need to continue with their mission to champion gun control under the guise of journalism, and that means taking the truth and trying to make it sound so much worse than it actually is.

Continue reading “”

Anti-liberty/gun cracktivist’s
By Mike McDaniel

Some things, death and taxes among them, never change. In the same category are the specious arguments of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists. Whenever a horrific crime like a mass shooting occurs, they blame the gun and the Americans who would never commit such a crime.

They also have additional narratives they hope Americans can be tricked into believing, such as virtually every mass attack is carried out by white men, all of whom are domestic terrorist, racist, transphobic white supremacist, Ultra-MAGA, Nazi, haters determined to destroy “our democracy.”

One such cracktivist is apparently John Davenport:

Graphic: Fordham University Faculty Site. Public Domain.

Dr. Davenport tells us the idea of greater security for students and the public at large is a “fallacy,” and “would not make us much safer.” He should know.  He’s a professor of peace and justice studies, which obviously makes him an expert about peace and justice  and stuff.

Think about it for a minute. How much would it actually cost to put armed guards in every single store and restaurant, every 300 feet or so on beaches and at open air events, in every movie theater and every 200 feet at concerts, at every entrance to every building at any hospital, college, school, church, temple or mosque, at all streets junction where lots of traffic piles up – and so on?

Actually, he’s sort of right. In 2013 even the NRA was advocating armed guards in every school. The usual suspects were against that, and the idea eventually died because the costs were—and are—simply too high. The numbers aren’t exact, but there are more than 110,000 K-12 public and private schools in America.  missiongraduatenm.org/number-of-schools-in-the-us/  Putting even one, full-time armed guard in each school is prohibitively expensive, and far more than one would be necessary.

Continue reading “”

Apparently, Nevada doesn’t have an immunity from civil suits statute for the lawful use of force that Missouri and several other states do.


Police investigate fatal shooting of intruder as experts explain Nevada’s Castle Doctrine

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Las Vegas Metro Police are investigating after a valley homeowner fatally shot an intruder last week, officials said.

Once the investigation is complete, Metro will send the case to the District Attorney’s office for a “self-defense review.”
WATCH | Nevada’s Castle Doctrine explained

The incident comes just a week after police say another homeowner shot two armed men who approached him in his garage.

In the wake of these recent shootings, I spoke with Michael Johnston, a use-of-force expert and CEO of Code 4 Consulting, about what rights homeowners have in these situations. Johnston is also a retired Henderson Police captain.

“The Castle Doctrine is designed to protect you and your family when you are in your home or in your car. You don’t have to wait to be injured, but there does have to be some level of threat that you feel personally in the need of self-defense,” Johnston said.

However, Johnston warns that taking action without sufficient threat can have serious consequences.

“While the Castle Doctrine is designed to protect you from the criminal side of a homicide, right, because the taking of another human life is a homicide, to make it justifiable would be the Castle Doctrine. But on the flip side is the civil litigation that could come on the backside of it. So while you might be justified criminally, there’s always a civil side that you have to be concerned with,” Johnston said.
Former Clark County District Attorney David Roger says there are three things prosecutors look at when considering these cases.

“So a person can use deadly force in self-defense under the following circumstances… First, they can’t be the aggressor. You have to be in actual fear of your safety or the safety of another person, and your fear has to be reasonable,” Roger said.

Both experts say homeowners should make sure they know Nevada law before defending their home.

The Lead “Crisis” And Regulatory Squeeze

How To Turn A Legitimate Concern Into A Backdoor Ban

The dangers of lead (the mineral, not the concept of pointing your gun ahead of a moving target) are not a myth, and shooters shouldn’t pretend otherwise. It’s a naturally occurring element used extensively in shooting sports with well-documented health risks. Anyone who spends time around firearms — especially indoors, in high-volume training, or at poorly managed ranges — should understand those risks clearly.

The problem isn’t that lead is dangerous. It certainly can be — just like chainsaws, motor vehicles and guns themselves — but the individual risks are easily reduced. The bigger problem for gun enthusiasts and hunters is how that danger is being selectively framed, exaggerated, and weaponized to make shooting sports increasingly expensive, impractical and regulated out of reach.

This is not about safety anymore. For anti-gunners, it’s about regulatory leverage.

Continue reading “”

Let me reiterate:

Bondi Beach Shows Why Self-Defense Is a Vital Right
Individuals and communities must take responsibility for their own safety.

At Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, a father-son team of ISIS-inspired terrorists murdered attendees at a celebration of the first day of Hanukkah. One of the attackers was disarmed by a heroic civilian who was shot in the process, while others lost their lives trying to help.

Contrasting Responses to Threats

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded to the shooting with promises to further tighten gun laws in the already restrictive country—a measure more likely to disarm potential victims than to inconvenience those planning a homicidal attack. In the U.S., by contrast, Jews stepped up security by themselves and alongside police. At the request of my wife’s rabbi, I recruited a friend who served as a Force Recon Marine. We strapped on armor and pistols to patrol the crowd at the menorah lighting in Sedona, Arizona. Members of the congregation carried concealed weapons of their own.

Nothing happened, but we were there to deter problems and respond if necessary. There’s a big difference between doubling down on failed state policies and taking responsibility for your own safety.

According to Prime Minister Albanese’s office, after the attack, “leaders agreed that strong, decisive and focused action was needed on gun law reform as an immediate action” and promised “to strengthen gun laws” with further restrictions. Of course, that’s what Australia did in 1996 after the Port Arthur mass shooting. The government banned a variety of firearms, with compensation for their surrender. Compliance was limited and the effort spawned a significant black market for guns.

But Australia’s millions of guns didn’t kill 15 people at Bondi Beach. Two men with known Islamist ties who traveled last month to the Philippines for training at terrorist summer camp committed the murders. They chose guns as their tools, but they could just as easily have used explosives, vehicles, incendiaries, or something else to cause mayhem.

“The issue is not gun laws. It’s hatred of Jews,” Rabbi Daniel Greyber of Durham, North Carolina commented after the Bondi Beach attack.

A Government That Can’t Be Trusted

And there’s little reason Australian Jews should trust the Australian government.

Continue reading “”

When Seconds Counted, St. Louis Police Were Hours Away

A St. Louis woman was held at gunpoint and assaulted in her apartment for several hours this past weekend, and though a neighbor heard her cries for help and called 911, police didn’t respond until after the victim was able to get to a phone hours later.

25-year-old Miles Faris is facing charges of first-degree kidnapping, second- and third-degree domestic assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and multiple drug charges, but police have not been able to take him into custody because he fled the apartment before officers arrived on scene.

In court documents, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department acknowledged there was a call reporting a woman screaming in the apartment where the incident happened, but “due to a high level of calls that night, police were not able to respond to that call.”

The victim said he then told the woman he would kill her, her family and her friends, and told her to Facetime her mother to say goodbye. He chambered a round and held the gun to her head, reiterating that he was going to kill her, police said.

The victim recorded some of the incident on her phone, including video that showed Faris pointing the gun at her multiple times while appearing “heavily intoxicated.” Faris also said he wanted to bash the woman’s skull in, and that if she didn’t wake up in the morning, he would be the No. 1 suspect, according to charging documents.

According to a police spokesperson, police officers in the area had 27 separate calls for service between 5 and 8 p.m. last Saturday, with one of them involving shots fired. The spokesman told KSDK-TV that the original 911 call from the neighbor didn’t include any information about weapons being involved or a potentially life-threatening situation taking place, so it was essentially put on the back burner in favor of calls that were deemed more important.

Continue reading “”

One Common Link for Mass Killings Should be Eliminated, and It’s Good for Gun Rights, Too

It’s darkly humorous to me how often anti-Second Amendment types see some kind of gun control law as the ultimate solution to everything. They pretend that this law will stop mass shootings, regular murders, suicides, domestic violence, type 2 diabetes, conflict in the Middle East, and Christmas’s encroachment into the rest of the year.

It’s funny how often they try that crap, and how often the media pretends they’re hearing BS and mistaking it for brilliance.

But there is one little change that could be made that would reduce a whole lot of problems. I’m honest enough to say it won’t make them all go away, but it’ll help reduce a lot, including mass shootings.

It’s pretty simple, really. End gun-free zones.

In their manifestos, many mass murderers have explicitly said they looked for targets that had disarmed victims in them. Nevertheless, mainstream-media outlets often leave this fact out.

The Annunciation Catholic School murderer wrote: “I recently heard a rumor that … the Aurora theater shooter, may have chosen venues that were ‘gun-free zones.’ I would probably aim the same way … .”

Yeah, this is pretty common. Mass killers have often picked gun-free zones for their rampages. That’s part of why schools are such popular targets. It’s why churches are popular targets. A lot of shopping malls are gun-free zones, and those are pretty popular with this bunch, too.

And look what happens when someone has a gun in one of these places that’s traditionally gun-free?

The Greenwood Park Mall shooting ended with an armed citizen becoming something of a legend in shooting circles. He put down the bad guy in impressive fashion.

Yet he wasn’t quite as impressive as Jack Wilson, who put down a would-be mass killer before the little bastard knew what hit him with a headshot that limited the horrific incident to just a few seconds at a church in White Settlement, Texas.

Guns save lives.

Gun-free zones are a primary target for would-be killers, and it’s not just mass killers, either. More pedestrian criminals have no respect for the signs on the door. Hell, if they’re going to prance around armed even though they can’t legally have a firearm at all, do you really think a sign will stop them? Of course not.

Look, making gun-free zones disappear won’t make all of society’s problems vanish in an instant. Unlike the other side of this debate, I’m not delusional.

But I can say that it’ll go a long way in reducing the threat to some of the places where people are the most vulnerable. What’s more, it means we’ll have more cases like White Settlement and Greenwood Park Mall, at the very least, and it might…encourage some people to look for another way to achieve fame or infamy, whichever they’re after.

Guns aren’t the problem. They’ve never been the problem. They’re tools; tools with no volition of their own. They serve their masters regardless of whether that master is a hero or a villain.

So let’s stop treating them like they are and start empowering the heroes instead of making it easier for the villains.

Crime Prevention Research Center Releases New CCW Data

The Crime Prevention Research Center has released its annual report on concealed carry in the U.S.

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has just released its 2025 Concealed Carry report, and while the numbers are down, the figure is deceiving because of the increase of permitless (“constitutional”) carry in 29 states.

The report acknowledges the number of permit holders fell by 0.59 million, for an estimated total of 20.88 million citizens who are licensed to carry. But the CPRC quickly notes, “The primary reason for the decrease is that permit numbers tend to drop gradually in Constitutional Carry states, even though it is evident that more people are legally carrying.”

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Women for Gun Rights

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

Learn more at www.WomenForGunRights.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Safety Part of Curriculum in Arkansas, Tennessee, Utah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

WSJ Launches Another Attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Everytown Misfires in Attack on Defensive Gun Uses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

More stand your ground lies

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

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

 

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

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

The WSJ is, at least, misleading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both are as predictable as they are despicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Continue reading “”

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


Continue reading “”