Safety – Page 3 – MILESFORTIS

Florida bill would allow armed volunteers to protect churches, synagogues, mosques
Sen. Don Gaetz said he ‘hoped (the bill) would never have been necessary.’

It’s rare when Sen. Don Gaetz says he filed a bill that he “hoped would never have been necessary.”

“But pastors in my area came to me with the request that I help them,” said Gaetz, R-Niceville, of Senate Bill 52.

The bill he spoke of, entitled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” would provide an exemption from licensure requirements for certain volunteers who provide armed security for places of worship.

“I hope the bill will help in assisting churches who feel like they have to protect themselves and their parishioners,” Gaetz said.

Here’s why: A string of recent shootings across the country and a major Florida court ruling on gun rights have reignited the national debate over firearms.

Recently in late August, two children were killed and and 17 people, including 14 children, were wounded after a shooter opened fire at a Catholic church in Minneapolis.

And last week, on the same day conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed at an event at a Utah university, two teenagers were wounded after a 16-year-old student fired shots inside his Colorado high school. He later killed himself as authorities confronted him outside.

In Florida, the state’s 1st District Court of Appeal declared unconstitutional a state law that bans the open carrying of firearms. A three-judge panel said the ban was incompatible with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, as of Sept. 18, there have been 305 mass shootings in 2025.

Gaetz’s bill will allow volunteers who meet certain requirements to provide security for places of worship if the security plan is approved by the local sheriff’s office; the volunteer has a valid Florida concealed carry permit and does not receive compensation for the security work; and if they pass a level 2 background check.

A level 2 background check is a state and federal-level fingerprint-based check, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The bill language says “place of worship” but also includes the words “church, mosque, or synagogue.”

“I was approached by Protestant ministers,” Gaetz said, adding that he has not spoken to Roman Catholic clergy, imams or rabbis.

But “I took the liberty of defining a house of worship in a way that would include all denominations,” he explained.

Antisemitic incidents in the United States have increased in the past couple of years, according to the Anti-Defamation League. In 2024, these incidents rose for the fourth consecutive year, reaching 9,354 total incidents, the highest level ever recorded in 45 years of record keeping.

There will be a companion bill in the Florida House, Gaetz said, and he expects it to be filed in the coming days. The 2026 legislative session convenes Jan. 13, and committee weeks begin Oct. 6.

If passed, the measure will take effect on July 1, 2026.

Americans Prefer Communities With Guns
Gun bans aren’t gaining traction.

With so many laws on the books regulating gun ownership and enforcing myriad gun control measures, it’s more than a bit surprising that Americans prefer law-abiding citizens be allowed to have firearms in their neighborhoods. This includes those who identify as Democrats. A new survey conducted by Napolitan News Service reveals 53% of voters “prefer to live in a community where people are allowed to own guns, while 38% say they would prefer to live where guns are outlawed.” This includes 76% of those who self-identify as Republican and 63% of Democrats.

By an almost 2-1 margin, men say they want to live in an area where their friends and neighbors are allowed to own guns. Women, however, appear to have mixed feelings, with 44% saying they prefer to have firearms outlawed. Forty-three percent of women want to live in a location where guns are allowed.

When asked about gun violence and so-called “mass shootings,” 56% of those polled would rather have the laws already on the books enforced over passing new legislation. Concerning matters of race, it’s clear that blacks and Hispanics are more concerned about “mass shootings.” Only 3% of whites said it was “very likely” that a close family member might be killed in a random shooting, but 11% of blacks and 9% of Hispanics felt more personally threatened.

Sending Thoughts and Prayers

After the recent killing of innocent schoolchildren in Minnesota, controversy erupted over the frequently used phrase “sending thoughts and prayers” to the families of those tragically killed. This poll reveals that only 26% of voters were bothered by this phraseology; 71% said those comments were not offensive.

Perhaps less shocking is that 77% of elites, that is, people with a postgraduate education who make more than $150,000 annually and live in highly populated urban areas, “favor banning private ownership of guns.”

Twenty-two states currently have constitutional carry laws. These gun-friendly states follow the Second Amendment more closely by permitting citizens to have the legal right to both open and concealed carry without having to get a license. These locations tend to be more rural, while urban areas – where much of the gun violence occurs – are more likely to restrict gun ownership.

The most gun-friendly states in the United States include Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, with Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri coming in the second tier.

Guns in the Hands of Law-Abiding Citizens

Recently, it was revealed that FBI statistics “massively undercounted defensive gun use for years,” according to Liberty Nation News. Author Graham Noble zeroed in on a report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) that showed “massive errors” in FBI data during Joe Biden’s administration. “If your agenda is to turn public opinion against gun ownership and spread the fear of gun violence, the last thing you want is people knowing guns can be, and often are, used to deter or prevent crime,” Noble astutely noted.

Conveniently leaving out the many times guns were used to stop crime in order to advance a political agenda is diabolical. The CPRC counted 561 active shootings in which 202 armed civilian interventions were reported. But the FBI recorded only 374 “active” shootings in which 14 armed civilians intervened. A spread that wide cannot be attributed to a simple error.

The fact is that more people surveyed feel safer in communities where law-abiding citizens have their firearms at the ready. And it shows that, instinctively, Americans know that guns in the hands of a good guy are the best defense during an active crime involving handguns.

How 9/11 Made Me Understand Importance of Gun Ownership

The idea of 24 years sounds like an awfully long time. This day, 24 years ago, seems almost like yesterday to me. Especially in the wake of what happened to Charlie Kirk yesterday.

I was home from work. I’d been having a series of migraines and took a week off to deal with that. I woke up and turned on the TV, only to see one of the towers of the World Trade Center burning.

My wife was out with my then-infant son. He was two months old that day and had a checkup, so she was unaware of anything happening. I wasn’t. I saw the second plane hit. I saw the reports of what happened at the Pentagon and of a plane crash in Pennsylvania.

My nation was under attack, and no one had a clue what was next.

All of these reports kept staggering in, adding to the horror we all felt, and I honestly didn’t know if or when it was going to stop. My nation was under attack, and I, not that long out of the Navy, was powerless to do anything. Would the attacks come to our front doors?

I was powerless.

At the time, I didn’t own a single firearm. I had nothing with which to defend my home.

I wasn’t anti-gun. I just hadn’t bothered to get one. Guns were expensive, and I had a young family and wasn’t exactly making the big bucks. There were always other things to buy.

It was clear, at that moment, that needed to change.

No, it turned out that there wasn’t another wave coming on that fateful day. Four planes were all there was, though that was more than enough.

In the coming days and weeks, America changed for a time. We were a nation more or less united. We had an enemy, someone to focus our ire on other than one another. We went to war, then stayed there. An entire generation grew up in the shadow of conflict. First in Afghanistan, then Iraq. Millions put on the uniform and served. Thousands never came home. Tens of thousands came home battered and broken in some way.

But many of us became aware that the bad guys could hit us at home, and that those brave men and women couldn’t be a complete and total shield for the United States.

We’d have to step up.

I carry a gun these days, not just for pedestrian crime from violent Americans or illegal immigrants, but because the Jihadists who hated us then hate us now. I refuse to feel that kind of powerless in the face of such evil ever again.

Since that day, we’ve seen other terrorist attacks on American soil. The nature of radical Islam hasn’t changed, nor has its desire to bring down the freest nation on Earth, the one they call “The Great Satan.” They just haven’t accomplished anything on that scale since that day.

Now, they attack on a more personal level, and should that happen, I refuse to just be a victim.

I might die, but I’ll die fighting, trying to protect others and the nation I love so dearly.

Without our gun rights, I’d be left with harsh language and skills with weapons generally too archaic to take seriously, even as terrorist networks arm their future martyrs across borders without regard for local laws.

Luckily, I do have them, so rather than challenge them to a fight with longswords or spears, I can just shoot them as God and Sam Colt intended.

Well, he’s got several things wrong from the start. (pretty much standard for those with a Harvard education) The most egregious about the 2nd amendment. It ‘allows’, or ‘gives’ nothing. The people already had RKBA before the U.S. was the U.S. The whole of the Bill of Rights are restrictions on government powers as written by the very authors in its own preamble

Democrats need to drop calling for gun bans and ask these two questions

Another day, another mass shooting — and yet another instance of our politicians failing to keep us safe from gun violence. We see pictures of mothers running barefoot to schools trying to get to their kids. We are told to give “thoughts and prayers” for children who were shot while literally praying. We are told there needs to be bans on guns in a country where there are more privately-owned guns than there are people.

As a liberal, I have lost complete faith that even the most caring Republican will do anything of value to stop gun violence in this country. The Republican (read gun lobby) position is that the more guns that are on the streets, the less safe it is, then we can bilk taxpayers for police budgets while getting people to buy more guns because it’s less safe.

We can see that in the “solution” that President Trump has for crime. But Trump’s use of the National Guard and federal agents walking around major cities won’t do anything to take guns off the street. That would not be profitable for the gun lobby.

But also, as a liberal, I have watched Democrats do the same song and dance over “common sense” gun laws that seem to lack common sense and are about as likely as Kanye West and Taylor Swift recording a duet together. As a gun owner myself, I often scoff or shake my head in confusion over the fact that Democrats could easily get the upper hand on the gun control debate by dropping the insistence on gun bans. They should instead be solely focused on gun trafficking and restrictions based on criminal convictions and mental health issues.

When you go out to the general public and say you want to ban guns you are destined to not get any traction.

Let’s put the whole Second Amendment aside for a moment. Owning a gun is a different experience in different parts of this massive country. I have lived in two Republican counties. When I lived in Waco, Texas you definitely needed a gun, especially when you went out into the boondocks. The police were far away and you could deal with anything from a criminal to a wild animal, so a gun would come in handy.

I now live in Orange County, Calif., where I feel no need to have a gun when I leave the house. There just isn’t a need (for me anyways).

When you scream about gun bans, that message will not resonate at all in either place. I may feel safe in California, but others don’t live in the nice community that I do. And going out into rural areas outside of Waco, you would be dumb not to have protection. Although people in both Texas and California want mass shootings to stop, we know that screaming for gun bans is a non-starter all over the country. And yet, Democrats will continue to scream for them.

It is time for a different approach. Democrats need to ask just two questions in order to get the legislation needed to bring down gun deaths.

First, does the Second Amendment give you the right to sell guns to a criminal?

Second, should a person diagnosed with schizophrenia be allowed to purchase a gun?

The Second Amendment clearly allows citizens the right to bear arms. Every single gun ban proposal runs face-first into that pesky part of the Bill of Rights, which is why many proposals to ban firearms fail.

Democrats need to get rid of this pie-in-the-sky notion that one day the Second Amendment will be repealed, or that Americans will wake up and turn in hundreds of millions of firearms. Instead of challenging gun ownership, they should challenge specific types of sales.

This is not a revelation. There have been calls to end gun show loopholes and private sales for a while. However, thanks to Trump’s insistence that federal law enforcement and National Guard get involved in local law enforcement, there is now an opportunity for Democrats as well. The NRA’s most hated federal entity is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Democratic governors should all invite ATF agents to come to their cities and insist that they go after gun traffickers, giving them a lot of latitude to do so.

The argument is sound. You have the right to bear arms, but you don’t have the right to sell arms to a felon, a drug dealer, a cartel member, a gang member, a terrorist, a foreign entity or other any other nefarious individual. Take that on the campaign trail and see Republicans try to explain that they are against that logic.

The best Republicans have come up with is “there is nothing you can do,” which is about as lazy as one can get. Especially since most firearms used in homicides are illegal or started off as legal and are somehow trafficked into criminals’ hands.

The second question is also politically incorrect but should be asked anyway. We know that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and that some mass shooters exhibit signs of mental illness. Again, the idea of red flag laws have been floated before, but the fear is that it is a gun ban as opposed to a question of safety. So, Democrats need to stop worrying about offending and be specific about whom they want to ban gun sales to.

“Should someone who is schizophrenic be able to buy a gun?” carries a lot more weight than: “We need red flag laws.” Identifying mental illnesses associated with suicides and mass shootings will force Republicans to answer why they want someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder from owning a gun. Is this politically correct for Democrats? No. But politicians who are committed to reducing gun violence should not worry about offending people.

The Democrats have a huge opportunity to save lives, while not infringing on people’s right to bear arms. They need to stop focusing on gun bans and instead get aggressive on trafficking and mental illness restrictions. They should force Republicans to answer the following two questions: Why are you okay with gun trafficking? And why are you okay with mentally ill people buying guns?

Sticking with those two questions might finally break the political deadlock and this ridiculous cycle of shooting, thoughts and prayers, speeches, no action, and then dealing with another shooting.

You will fight how you have been trained, so train like you will fight.
(Even if you haven’t trained, and in that event you will likely fight like a clown act in a 3 ring circus)
HINT
Church security teams attend BFA training in Middletown

On Saturday, Aug. 30, 2025, church security team members from as far away as Texas attended a training class in Middletown, Ohio, sponsored by Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA).

Protecting Houses of Worship is an all-new training class designed to introduce participants to the unique security needs of churches. Training includes the history of active killing events, including current tragedies, plus “stop the bleed” medical training, active killer response tactics, and realistic threat scenarios.

“It’s a sad reality that we have to have something like this in our churches, but we want to make sure that we are ready, prepared, and we’re in the right mindset for any situation that comes toward us,” said Kyle Eaton, the safety and security team leader at Quest Church in Middletown.

Unfortunately, churches are soft targets. They’re highly vulnerable because during services, they host large groups of people in an open room, sitting close together, and unable to quickly move away from a threat.

And to make matters worse, many churches will not acknowledge their vulnerability. They probably install smoke detectors and sprinklers to suppress a fire or install AEDs and first aid kits to deal with medical emergencies, but refuse to consider active killer threats or take steps to protect church members.

But for congregations with a more realistic mindset, Protecting Houses of Worship can provide a solid starting point to form or train a security team.

If your church is interested in hosting a class, contact BFA. There is no live fire or loaded firearms in this class. SIRT laser pistols (provided) allow all participants to safely practice effective response tactics in a realistic church setting.

The False Choice of Protecting Kids or Our Second Amendment Rights

There is no widespread support for repealing the Second Amendment, but every time there’s a high-profile shooting some anti-gunners inevitably use the tragedy to push for getting rid of our right to keep and bear arms.

I’ve seen numerous posts on social media demanding that we give up those rights in order to protect innocent schoolchildren, as well as several letters to the editor in various newspapers, like this one that recently appeared in the Louisville Courier Journal. ….

It is now way past time for each of us to ask ourselves a question: Which is more important for me — the right of a child to live or my right to keep and bear arms given to me by the sacred Second Amendment to our Constitution?

I’ve been hearing variations of this question for as long as I’ve been reporting on Second Amendment issues, but its very premise is nonsensical. The Second Amendment has existed since 1791, and there has never been any widespread effort to amend or repeal it. Does that mean that every generation that’s come before us, including the one that enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, believed those rights were more important than the lives of children?

The Second Amendment largely exists to defend lives, and most of us understand that even if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, evil individuals would still be targeting innocent victims.
Continue reading “”

What We Didn’t Learn About Mass Murder

For every problem there is a quick, cheap, and simple solution.. that doesn’t work. A mentally ill person attacked a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We’ve been there before. Why are we attracted to solutions that fail time after time?

We love our children. Let’s put up a plastic sign that tells honest people to keep their guns outside our schools. It turns out that murderers are attracted by plastic signs that advertise disarmed victims. We would rather put up another sign than admit that criminals ignore our regulations.

We love to concentrate on our spiritual life at church. It is a rare moment to escape from the pressing cares of the world. Let’s pass a regulation so that honest citizens won’t bring their guns to church. It turns out that our honest neighbors were never a violent problem. Narcissistic mass-murderers look for disarmed victims. These murderers almost always attack “gun-free” zones. Why do we want to make it easier for violent murderers to find their victims?

We hate the idea that our laws don’t work. That is why we require mandatory background checks before someone may buy or own a firearm. Background checks don’t work on criminals because criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shops any more than they buy their drugs at the drug store. Background checks look backwards, and mass-murder is a one-and-done carrier choice.

In hindsight, mass murderers look crazy. Unfortunately, we seldom see mental health professionals diagnose and report a violent patient. We have seen several mass-murderers who were receiving mental health counselling. Experience taught us that mental health treatment isn’t aways a cure. We shouldn’t count on talk-therapy to protect the people we love.

Maybe you once wanted to hurt your neighbors. I’ll bet that feeling left as quickly as it came. Since sober reflection works to stops most of us, we passed mandatory waiting periods in the hope that gun-control regulations would stop violent murderers. It turns out that violent murderers are not like us. They are persistent. They spend years pleasantly planning their violent revenge. Waiting periods don’t stop mass-murderers, but they do disarm honest people who have an urgent need for armed defense. I don’t want our laws to disarm people who flee domestic abuse.

Politicians sold us ammunition capacity restrictions in the hope that less capable murderers would lead to fewer victims. That doesn’t really work in practice. Our honest neighbors defend themselves with a firearm about 2.8-million times a year. The victims are usually the first responders who stop violence. Making the victim less capable doesn’t make us safer when a crazy man attacks a church. We’ve seen what honest defenders can do time after time.

We are wiser as we grow older. That was why we passed age restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership. It also turns out that young people are frequent victims of crime. Disarming the co-ed as she walks home from her job at the convenience store doesn’t make us safer. It does make her an easier victim, and that is what criminals look for.

We know what works. The mass-murderers told us what they wanted. Also, we conducted the experiment with armed defenders a few million times. We’ve never had a mass murderer attack a school that publicly posted a policy of armed school staff. If we want to stop the attack before it happens, then we take down the no-guns signs that attract mass murderers. In public spaces where our neighbors are allowed to defend themselves, we see them save the next dozen victims who would die if we waited for the police to defend us. Unfortunately, defending your school, your church, or your home is harder than passing a law and putting up a plastic sign.

We know how to save lives. Our doctor tells us to eat moderately and exercise regularly. Armed defense isn’t hard, and it works. Like following our doctor’s advice, the difficult news is that we have to do it every day.

Ilhan Omar Loses the Plot with Anti-Gun Fear Mongering

As I’ve said a fair bit throughout the day, I know that the aftermath of mass shootings results in calls for gun control. What happened in Minneapolis doesn’t even really rise to the typical standard of a mass shooting, but two kids are dead and 17 other people were wounded, which means it’s bad enough that I won’t get into semantics right now.

But it would be nice for there to be something approaching sensibility in the calls for gun control. There’s no such thing as “common sense” gun-grabbing, as I noted earlier today, but there should be at least some attempt that looks like addressing the shooting.

Or, you could be Ilhan Omar and go in a completely different direction.

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar cited today’s school shooting— committed by a Minnesota resident — and used it to demand federal gun control, even though the facts contradict her warning about outsiders bringing guns into the state.

A shooter opened fire during morning Mass at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Wednesday while kindergarten through eighth-grade students attended, officials and news reports said. During an appearance on ” The Weeknight,” Omar used the tragedy to argue that Minnesota’s strict gun laws mean little without federal action, warning that residents from neighboring states could bring firearms across state lines and endanger her constituents.

“In Minnesota, we have strong gun laws, but Indiana is not that far away from us. And so we have to recognize as, you know, people who live in the United States, you know, a community like Minneapolis or just the state of Minnesota taking action does not prevent our neighbor from coming and harming one of our community members,” Omar said.

That’s right. It doesn’t really matter what Minnesota does because Indiana won’t do what Minnesota wants it to do.

These are the same people who tend to claim that the issue with preemption is that it doesn’t let local governments decide what works for them, yet here they are saying that every state needs to conform, regardless of what works for them.

Yeah, my days of taking Omar seriously are…well, they’re not even close to reaching a middle, actually.

The killer in this case didn’t come from out of state. He lived there. His mother worked for that school, for crying out loud. He was raised right there in Minnesota, from what we can tell as of this writing.

To make the claim that we need federal legislation because of something that happened exclusively within the borders of Minnesota, which showed that Minnesota’s current gun laws failed to stop a mass shooting, is especially stupid of her.

And that’s saying something.

Even if you did somehow pass national gun control laws, the truth is that criminals will bypass them because they’re criminals. Luigi Mangione is accused of building a gun and a suppressor and killing a guy. He could have bought a gun legally before his arrest, but he didn’t, because criminals don’t.

Plus, there are tons of massacres that have happened over the years that didn’t involve firearms at all, and that always gets missed or willfully ignored. With Omar, it could go either way.

This is the dumbest argument I’ve seen from an anti-gunner, and we’ll see it again. That’s the truly stupid thing here.

Is Europe Still Safe? Migrant Sex Crimes Surge While Children Face Arrest For Self-Defence

14-year-old girl in Dundee ©Screenshot via Right Angle News Network/Unsplash

From the streets of Dundee to the courtrooms of Düsseldorf, Europe is grappling with a troubling wave of migrant-linked sex crime cases. In a shocking twist, it is often the victims, not the perpetrators, who find themselves punished.

The arrest of a 14-year-old Scottish girl for brandishing a knife in self-defence has sparked outrage and raised an unsettling question across the continent: is Europe still safe, or has justice turned against those it is meant to protect?

Teen Arrested After Standing Up to Alleged Attacker
In Dundee, police arrested a 14-year-old girl who pulled out a knife when confronted by a man near St Ann’s Lane. Officers charged her with carrying a ‘bladed weapon’.

The teenager insists she acted only to protect herself and a friend from a migrant man who was allegedly recording them. Campaigners online said she had been punished for survival, not for committing a crime.

One social media user wrote: ‘She chose not to be raped by an invader, therefore, she was arrested by her own police.’

Her arrest has ignited a fierce debate in Britain. Critics ask whether the justice system is protecting young girls or leaving them exposed.

Continue reading “”

Somebody Finally Admits It!
Licensed Citizens are “Responsible Gun Owners”

Here’s something you don’t see every day, especially at a “mainstream” publication such as Axios, where a recent story — which (full disclosure) included a quote from yours truly — featured a stunning acknowledgement from the CEO of the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based, billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group.

“While we acknowledge more guns pose a greater threat to our communities, CPL holders tend to be responsible gun owners,” Alliance boss Renee Hopkins told Axios.

From an anti-gunner in the Evergreen State, that’s a choking mouthful. Just to make sure it wasn’t a typo, I spoke with reporter Christine Clarridge, a veteran journalist not known for flubbing a quote and was satisfied the remark was accurate.

Which raises the question: If the gun control crowd admits law-abiding, legally-armed citizens are not a problem, why do anti-gun-rights advocates continue pushing legislation which they know will only affect the good guys? The easy answer: They know honest citizens will remain so and they also know trying to get criminals to comply is a dead-end endeavor.

Back in 2021, Dr. John Lott, founder and CEO at the Crime Prevention Research Center, did an essay on just how law-abiding CCW permit holders are. To give readers an idea about where his research went, Lott wrote this: “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers. In the 19 states with comprehensive permit revocation data, the average revocation rate is one-tenth of one percent. Usually, permit revocations occur because someone moved or died or forgot to bring their permit while carrying.”

Dr. John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center,
says private citizens licensed to carry are far more law-abiding
than most other people.

He added, “Academics have published fifty-two peer-reviewed, empirical studies on concealed carry. Of these, 25 found that allowing people to carry reduces violent crime, and 15 found no significant effect. A minority (12) observed increases in violent crime. These 12, however, suffer from a systematic error to varying degrees: they tend to focus on the last 20 years and compare states that recently passed concealed carry laws with more lenient states that had sustained growth in permits over the past two decades. The finding that crime rose relatively in such states is consistent with permit holders reducing crime.”

The Axios piece centered on Clarridge’s report about the rising number of concealed pistol licenses in Washington state. I’ve been reporting on this for some years, but the establishment media avoids the story like the Olympic shooting competitions. Nobody on the left wants to acknowledge the Evergreen State has more than 709,000 active CPLs, and that roughly 20 percent of those licenses are held by women. What’s the number in your state, and what percentage of armed citizens are women?
Continue reading “”

92 Ohio school districts now allow staff to carry blasters

Ohio has been doing this since 2022, a year that saw 22 school districts arm their staffs after the passage of a new law allowing the practice. Fast-forward to 2025 and that number is 92.

The main argument for arming these teachers is that in rural areas like Eastern Ohio where Benjamin Logan Local School District is located, it takes too long (about 10-15 minutes) for police to arrive during an active shooter situation. With armed staff, this isn’t as much of a problem.

These armed staff members are required to take basic firearms training before they can carry in school.

Believe it or not, 30 states allow school staff to carry firearms.

From Newsweek:

Here’s what the comments look like on Twitter when it comes to the above report on Benjamin Logan:

Second Amendment rights must apply to our military service members | PHIL WILLIAMS

Gun control laws continue to fail.

And where gun control laws make the least amount of sense are on U.S. military installations ― policy that must change.

The world turned its attention recently to an active shooter incident in Manhattan. A depraved individual drove to the heart of New York City, walked calmly into a downtown high rise, killed five people and took his own life. No one knows why a bad guy took up arms and committed heinous acts of terror.

Just weeks before the New York shooting, we saw the heroism of a former Marine named Derrick Perry in Michigan, who pulled his concealed-carry firearm and saved innocent bystanders from a knife-wielding madman who had just stabbed multiple people at random. A good guy who took up arms and stopped heinous acts of terror.

In reality, it is not guns that are bad. It is bad people with guns who are bad. Let’s keep in mind that both New York and Michigan have stringent gun control laws. Gun control did not stop the loss of life in Manhattan. Gun control laws did not stop the violence in Michigan.

More recently, another episode of gun violence erupted at the U.S. Army’s Fort Stewart, Georgia. Army Sgt. Quornelius Radford, using a personal weapon, opened fire on fellow soldiers, wounding five. He was stopped by other servicemembers who have since been decorated for their bravery.

But none of the responding soldiers could be called “good guys with guns.” Why? Because the U.S. military has the most draconian gun control laws in the nation.

Let that sink in.

Fort Stewart is home to the legendary 3rd Infantry Division, whose exploits include those of Audie Murphy. It’s the same Fort Stewart with two Armored Brigade Combat Teams, and its nearby sister installation Hunter Army Airfield, which houses the 1st Ranger Battalion. Soldiers who are trained as experts in the use of firearms, yet they cannot have their own firearms on post. Unless of course they are a bad guy who snuck it in with intent to do harm.

What about red state Alabama whose state motto resounds “We Dare Defend Our Rights?” All personal firearms on Alabama’s Redstone Arsenal must be registered or be subject to confiscation. Outside the gate, Alabama citizens may freely open carry a firearm, and concealed carry no longer requires a permit. But on Redstone Arsenal, where soldiers have far more firearms training than the average citizen, that freedom is curtailed. The same is true for Alabama’s Fort Rucker.

Consider the disparity in treatment here. Outside the gate, civilians freely exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They do so with no prerequisite training or conditioning. There are no mandatory gun safety course. There are no annual weapons qualification requirements for civilians.

But on an Army installation, soldiers have all of the above: Basic training with firearms, advanced training, reflexive fire training, annual qualification and awards for marksmanship. And yet, they must face the complete curtailing of their Second Amendment rights.

In 2016, President Donald Trump called for the military gun control policies to be rescinded. Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley opposed the idea. Go figure.

Firearms are not scary. People are scary. Period.

Aside from noise and a general lack of familiarity, most people are more concerned about the manner in which firearms are used, maintained or handled, which are issues of purely HUMAN fault. Those are issues for which the U.S. military is more than qualified to address.

I bear the surgical scars from someone being lax with firearm safety. Despite getting shot by one of those evil firearms I was able to separate the causation from the instrument. It was not the shotgun that shot me in and of itself. Rather, it was the knuckleheaded laxity of the guy who shot me and who should have known better.

And soldiers? They know better than most.

Soldiers know how to handle firearms. Breach load, bolt action, magazine fed and pump. Holographic sights, iron sights, and no sights. Holstered, unholstered and slung. Long guns, sidearms and scatter shots. They are trained to carry them in combat. Trusted in every respect. Except when they are in garrison on the Army installations to which they are assigned.

“You don’t forfeit all of your rights when you enter the military,” Carpenter said. “Outside of a military situation, the service member has just as much Second Amendment right as anyone else.” Referencing the recent shooting at Fort Stewart, Carpenter also said, “All those rules aren’t going to prevent someone from doing what the guy did today,”

Guns are not scary. People are scary. GOOD people with guns are what often stands between potential victims and bad people with guns. And our U.S. servicemembers are among the best. We trust them with our lives and swear them to an oath before taking up arms. It is time that we looked them in the eye and told them that we trust them with their rights.

Let’s restore the Second Amendment for our military. They’ve earned it.

Phil Williams is a former state senator from District 10 (which includes Etowah County), retired Army colonel and combat veteran, and a practicing attorney. He previously served with the leadership of the Alabama Policy Institute in Birmingham. He currently hosts the conservative news/talk show Rightside Radio on multiple channels throughout north Alabama. The opinions expressed are his own.

Concealment merely hides you. Cover stops bullets.

Discover Cover: Having something between you and the bad guy that can stop incoming rounds is vital in a gunfight.

When folks begin to develop their personal-defense plans, I think one important subject that is often overlooked is the use of cover. For our purposes, cover is anything that will stop a bullet. In addition to the obvious safety value, moving yourself to cover can also disrupt the criminal’s attack plan and cause them to lose some of the advantage they might have had.

And, the good news is that cover is all around us, wherever we might be: Trees, cars, brick walls, that large neighborhood mailbox; the list is huge. Then there are all of the available cover opportunities waiting to be found in the average home: bookcases, large appliances, heavy furniture, even that mattress and heavy box-spring on the bed. It is an excellent exercise to identify all of the good cover nearby during one’s regular daily routine, whatever that might be.

A good dry-practice exercise (with an assuredly unloaded gun) would be to move through your home and actually make use of that cover as if dealing with an actual attack. In the home, on the outside property and at work, there is really no excuse for not taking the time to identify available cover as merely just a defensive exercise.

In Col. Jeff Cooper’s awareness color code, we talk about Condition Orange: the potential threat. For whatever reason this situation is not currently a threat, but it certainly could become one. Our first thought should be to just get away from this potentially bad situation. But, that might not be possible or practical. While keeping an eye on the situation, this is an excellent time to identify the closest cover or areas of cover and decide which one to use if things go bad.

The biggest mistake is to wait until an attack occurs to try to decide what to do. At that point, there are too many other things that require our immediate attention. We might overlook the best cover or exit.

Another thing to keep in mind is that all cover is not equal. Actually, it is your attacker’s choice of firearms that is the problem. Some things that will stop pistol bullets won’t stop bullets from a rifle. And even among handguns, we know that a .44 Mag. will get through things that will stop a 9 mm hollowpoint. That is one of the reasons we look for several cover options instead of just one.

Interior sheetrock walls may offer concealment, but they provide poor cover. The same can be said of most modern automobile bodies, with the exception of the car’s engine. If you have to take cover behind a vehicle, it is very advisable to do so at the front end. And, for goodness sake, don’t then peek up over the hood; crooks will be expecting that move. Instead, get low, on your knees if you have to, and peer around the front of the vehicle, eyes level with the headlights or even the bumper.

I know a highway patrolman who engaged an armed felon as they chased each other around a vehicle. The patrolman went prone and, looking under a car, could see the crook’s feet. His .357 Mag. round went through both of the outlaw’s ankles, effectively stopping the fight.

It is often a good idea for the armed citizen to disengage and get away from the fight if possible. The use of cover allows them to consider and identify an exit while dealing with the attack. However, we never want to turn our back on the attacker while making an exit. Besides the potential for injury, we might also lose track of their location.

We can practice using cover during dry-practice sessions in our home or around it. On the live-fire shooting range, we might set up objects that simulate cover. A barricade post, a wooden cabinet or some such object can give us the opportunity in order to practice our pistol presentation and then quick movement to this simulated cover if your range allows. And we can also practice our live fire from kneeling or prone while using that cover.

Another excellent practice situation would be to find a facility that has an outdoor range with vehicles to use as cover to practice (Gunsite Academy, for instance). We can practice quickly exiting and taking cover (where the RSOs will permit it). And, again, get live-fire practice on targets from prone or kneeling from behind the vehicle’s engine compartment. Just keep in mind that all safety rules apply, all the time. We are not out there to look cool, but rather to be safe and learn something.

Identifying and using cover should be an integral part of any personal-defense plan. Such a practice is an great idea to keep an eye out for whatever cover is available wherever you happen to be. In a lot of our defensive-shooting classes, we teach students to incorporate movement into the pistol presentation—some call it getting off the “X”—and going to the closest cover is the best use of that movement.

More good advice from fellow shootist Sheriff Wilson

Taking Care Of Your Guns
Your life may depend on it, so take good care of it.

As a young man I spent a lot of time around older shooters and old lawmen trying to learn as much as I could. One of the things that most of them had in common was how well they took care of their guns. Many of them were shooting guns from the pre-WWII era, but those guns were still in very good shape. When they shot them, they cleaned them and generally wiped them off at night with an oily rag. They generally understood how their guns worked and could replace worn parts when that became necessary.

The armed citizen doesn’t need to be a firearm expert, but they do need to know how their choice of a defensive firearm works. It is also important to know what type of failures are common to a specific type of firearm, how to spot them and what to do about it.

Many semi-automatic pistols should have their mainspring replaced on a regular basis; some gunsmiths advise that every 1,000 rounds would be a good interval. One should also learn how to check the extractor and ejector for excessive wear. Semi-automatic pistol shooters quickly learn to spot the malfunctions that are caused by a faulty or worn magazine. And for goodness sakes, a bad magazine belongs in the trashcan, not among your practice gear.

Revolver shooters need to make sure that each chamber in the cylinder lines up properly with the barrel; spitting lead is a good indication that this is not the case. In some revolvers the ejector rod can come loose and tie up the gun; preventing that is an easy fix if one knows what to look for. Some revolvers have an external screw on the front of the grip frame that puts tension on the mainspring and keeps it in place; this should be snug and tight to prevent misfires.

I think that we often fail to realize the wear and tear that guns can receive from the mini-explosions that we call shooting. Gun parts wear just a little bit every time we pull the trigger. If an armed citizen will take the time to visit with a good gunsmith, they can quickly learn wear-related and other problems that might occur in their particular firearm. Then regular cleaning sessions and just taking the time of give the gun a good once over can often catch the problem before a misfire or failure to fire occurs. Simply put, you may have to bet your life on it, so it is a good idea to make sure that gun is in good working order.

Gun-Free Zones Like Fort Stewart Invite Mass Shootings

On Wednesday, another mass shooting unfolded — this time at Fort Stewart military base in Georgia. A male Army sergeant, who illegally carried a gun on the base, wounded five soldiers before others tackled and disarmed him.

Typically, only authorized designated security forces such as MPs are armed on duty. Any other soldier caught carrying a firearm faces severe consequences, ranging from a rank reduction, court-martial, potential criminal convictions, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and even imprisonment.

So why would a soldier risk such harsh penalties? Because if you’re the attacker, planning to murder fellow soldiers, gun control laws won’t stop you. If you expect to die in the assault, as most mass public shooters do, extra years added to your sentence mean nothing. Even if you survive, you already anticipate multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But for law-abiding soldiers, those same rules carry enormous weight. Carrying a gun for self-defense could turn them into felons and destroy their futures. These gun control policies disarm the innocent while encouraging a determined killer to attack there as they will know that they are the only ones who will be armed.

Yes, military police guard entrances, but like civilian police, they can’t be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to off-base mass shootings.

Consider the attacks at the Navy Yard, both Fort Hood shootings, and the Chattanooga recruiting station. In each case, unarmed JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers had no choice but to hide while the attacker fired shot after shot.

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, then commander of Third Corps stationed at Fort Hood, testified to Congress about the second attack there: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.” But eight minutes was simply too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they’ll face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back. While we don’t yet know if the Fort Stewart shooter made that same calculation, his actions fit a pattern seen in dozens of other cases. It’s no coincidence that 94 percent of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.

Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers are defenseless.

These are soldiers trained to handle firearms. We trust them with weapons in combat, yet we deny them that same trust on their own bases.

In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military into a more “professional, business-like environment.” That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.

After the 2015 Chattanooga recruiting station attack, the military slightly loosened the rules. Commanders gained the authority to approve individual service members to carry privately owned firearms. But in practice, commanders rarely grant that permission.

Importantly, U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan were required to keep their weapons on them at all times — even on base. These soldiers needed to protect themselves against threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other. The policy worked.

So why do we make it easy for killers to target our own troops at home? Why do we force soldiers, like those at Fort Stewart, to tackle armed attackers with bare hands?

Let’s stop pretending that gun-free zones protect anyone. They only protect killers.

Jankovich: Walmart stabbings show flaw in gun control logic

Last weekend, a man walked into a Walmart in Traverse City and stabbed 11 innocent people in a random, brutal act of violence. The scene was horrifying—but thankfully, everyone survived.

The media covered the initial shock. The politicians issued generic statements. But something’s missing — something that always seems to go missing when the narrative doesn’t fit: no one is talking about “knife control.” Why is that?

A knife was used to commit mass violence — just as we’ve seen before with hammers, axes and even cars. These are real tragedies, carried out without a single bullet fired. And yet, no one is proposing sweeping legislation to regulate or ban knives or to require background checks before buying a truck.

Because deep down, we all know the glaring truth: it’s not the object that commits the violence; it’s the person. But the moment a firearm is involved, the story changes. The headlines explode. Politicians scramble to propose more restrictions. And the blame shifts from the criminal to the tool they used.

Police respond to multiple people being stabbed inside a Walmart Supercenter store near Traverse City, Mich. on Saturday, July 26, 2025.
This double standard isn’t just frustrating, it’s dangerous. It distracts from real solutions, and it deliberately ignores the fact that, in Traverse City, a law-abiding citizen with a firearm stopped the attack before more people were stabbed.

When police arrived at the scene, the alleged attacker had already been restrained, held at gunpoint by a shopper.

That’s right: a proverbial “good guy” with a gun stopped a “bad guy” with a knife. It’s textbook self-defense and the outcome we hope for in moments of crisis.

This is the very reason Women for Gun Rights exists. We believe the Second Amendment protects not just the right to “bear arms” — but the right to defend yourself and others when no one else can. At the end of the day, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, you are your own first responder. Your life, and the lives of others, is your responsibility.

This incident also highlights another uncomfortable pattern that truly undermines the efficacy of gun control. Authorities said the suspect had a history of “assaultive incidents.” In other words, they knew he was dangerous and capable of violence. While shocking to hear, this isn’t an isolated occurrence. Over and over, we’ve seen mass casualty events carried out by individuals who were already on law enforcement’s radar. The signs were there. The threats had been made. Reports were filed. But the system didn’t act.

And yet, every time a tragedy occurs, the focus shifts — not to the failures of intervention, but to restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. Groups like Moms Demand Action and anti-gun politicians push for Red Flag laws, assault weapon bans and magazine limits, as if taking tools away from the responsible will somehow stop the reckless and violent.

But Traverse City shows the flaw in that logic.

The attacker didn’t use a gun. He used a knife. Would a Red Flag law have prevented it? Would a gun ban have saved those people? Of course not. The answer isn’t to criminalize gun ownership — it’s to crack down on actual criminals, take real threats seriously and enforce the laws we already have against people who have proven themselves violent and dangerous.

This is an important moment in Michigan and across the United States. It’s time to stop pretending the tool is the problem and start focusing on the truth: dangerous people are the threat. And guns, in the hands of the right people, save lives.

Marcy Jankovich is the Michigan State Director for Women for Gun Rights.

Well, I can see such as ‘another club in the bag’ so to speak

What We Really Need for Effective Self-Defense: Reliable Non-Lethal Incapacitation.

Recently, Shooting News Weekly shared a quote from Open Source Defense. In short, they called for technological improvements in guns to make them easier to shoot, have higher capacities, and otherwise be more useful for the average human. I agree with the idea that weapons should continue to improve as technology advances.

On the other hand, humans have a tendency to get stuck in a paradigm that keeps us from moving on to better technologies. For example, there’s the famous quote from Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” The automobile was a radical departure from using animal power to get around, and is better for nearly all use cases. But few had imagined that at the time.

To avoid that trap, I propose the industry should set goals and then determine what technologies need to be further developed or created from scratch to meet those goals. This kind of leadership by objective isn’t perfect, but it can help us avoid seeking “faster horses” in the gun world.

One of the biggest things anti-gunners misunderstand is the alleged desire among gun owners to kill people. While there are always a few nutters who fantasize about having an excuse to kill another human being (we can call them the “I wish an MF’er would” crowd), the vast, vast majority of gun owners only want to be able to stop a threat to their lives and those of people they care about.

If it were possible to stop the threat consistently and reliably without the attendant tragedy of ending another human life, that’s what virtually all of us would choose. We have some tools designed for non-lethal incapacitation, but sadly, They’re not reliable enough for life-and-death situations. TASER darts don’t always stick and things like OC spray can be affected by wind, sunglasses, the influence of drugs, etc. That’s why such weapons aren’t good answers to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. We just can’t take a chance on them not working.

Still, we try to find ways to avoid needing to kill someone. Non-violent dispute resolution tactics like Verbal Judo are widely taught in the firearms community. Farnam’s “Rule of Stupids” (avoid doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places) has long been taught to people who want to carry a gun for self-defense. Avoiding situations where you might need to use a gun entirely is the key here.

In the long run, it’s my hope that the industry takes this to heart as it seeks to improve weapon designs and invent new tools for self-defense. Instead of a faster horse — a gun that’s easier to shoot and throws more pieces of metal around — what we really need is something like Star Trek phasers. On one setting, people in that fictional world can reliably knock most threats out when it’s appropriate. The option to kill, however, is still available when it’s absolutely necessary. Kirk’s phaser was also good as a powerful cutting tool, a signal, a source of heat, and many other uses.

We’re probably nowhere near such a weapon yet, but it’s a good north star to guide the industry. Reliable incapacitation might not come from an energy weapon like we see in science fiction, but whatever the path it is that leads in that direction, we should focus on finding it.

Right to bear arms also a responsibility

A violent attack in Traverse City, Michigan, would not have been prevented by any of the myriad proposals for more intrusive “gun control” — the attack, in which 11 people were viciously stabbed, was carried out with a folding knife.

Instead the first gun at the scene of the attack, which authorities are seeking to define as terrorism, was carried by a law-abiding citizen, who helped defuse the situation and coax the alleged perpetrator into surrendering.

The citizen, a retired Marine bearing arms in concordance with the Second Amendment rights we frequently defend in our editorials, acknowledged in an interview with the Detroit Free Press that the Second Amendment is as much a responsibility as a right.

“The only that separated me from the other gentlemen that had stepped in as well was what was I was carrying in my hands,” Derrick Perry said. “I think I would have ran out there or walked out there and helped either way. … It was just a moment of ‘I got a duty to protect.’”

We are not saying that everyone needs to bear this responsibility, or that everyone is well-suited to bear it. We recognize that a society that allows people to pursue their opportunities and exercise their liberties will depend on everybody taking on different responsibilities — the responsibilities they are best equipped to fulfill.

But we believe that the men, women and children of Traverse City should appreciate that Derrick Perry understands that he not only has a right to own and carry a firearm, but as someone willing to train and educate himself on the use of firearms, he has an opportunity to shoulder the responsibility of helping to keep his community safe.

While we are far from the scene of this crime in northern Michigan, we appreciate Perry’s willingness, as a retired Marine, to serve his country and his willingness, as displayed by his bravery that day, to continue to serve his fellow Americans by being prepared to defend their lives and liberties.

We hope people across our nation can learn both to respect the necessity of a sense of responsibility in each of us, and the necessity of respect for the freedoms and liberties that allow us to bear those responsibilities.

Canada Has Proven the Ineffectiveness of Oppressive National-Level Gun Control Laws.

A high profile mass shooting happened in a heavily gun controlled state so, predictably, the civilian disarmament industrial complex has once again jumped onto the argument that we need far more federal-level gun rights restrictions. One of the countries they love to use as an exemplar for gun control Nirvana they seek is Canada.

For the last decade under Justin Trudeau, Canada ratcheted up their gun control laws. This went against what he had promised back in 2010, when he said he would never confiscate guns but that lie really isn’t surprising. We see that with purple and red state Democrats on this side of the border who engage in a sort of gun control taqiyya. They promise not to ban guns like the AR-15 during their campaigns, then support bans after the election (see: Conor Lamb, Jason Kander, and many others).

Under Trudeau, Canada did all of the following, which would make America’s gun control industry swoon if it happned here:

Passed new legislation which extended background checks from five years to a lifetime
Implemented a point-of-sale registration by business
Required authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms to locations other than the range (e.g. gunsmiths, gun shows, etc.) through strengthened transportation requirements
Prohibited 1,500 models of “assault-style” weapons, the public was offered a grace period to turn them in
National freeze on the sale of new handguns
Banned another 400 guns by make and model just recently

So, with all of this new gun control, homicides must have surely fallen through the floor, right? After all, that’s the whole point of passing more gun control laws isn’t it?

Nope.

Continue reading “”

“GOOD GUY WITH A GUN”™