Category: Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daydreaming the Guns Away

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miss Swearer hit a line drive out of the park again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

Do Gun-Control Democrats Want Us Dead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

But those days are history.

Continue reading “”

Some people have been saying this for years.

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

The whole show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri: Time Running Out for Self-Defense Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.