Category: Safety
BLUF
The only way to address gun violence is to do so head-on, with legislation that will actually protect our school children and encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. We urge Congress to consider a more effective approach, such as hardening schools, allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools, and passing laws that support responsible gun ownership. The safety of all Americans depends on it.
Preventing responsible gun ownership will not make America safer
It has been an important few weeks for the public’s Second Amendment rights. In the first major gun rights decision since 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right to carry a concealed firearm by striking down a New York state law that made it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outside their home legally, and wrongfully required individuals to demonstrate a “special need” for self-protection to qualify for a carry license. This was a major victory that will affect at least six other states with similar restrictive licensing requirements, also known as “may issue” laws.
Unfortunately, Congress took advantage of the recent school shooting tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, to pass gun control legislation even though that meant ignoring most voters who believe more gun control is not the path forward . The result is the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first package of gun control legislation in decades.
While this bill makes significant and encouraging investments in school safety programs and our nation’s mental health system, it doesn’t fundamentally address the root causes of gun violence, and it even goes so far as to award taxpayer dollars to states that implement red flag laws.
Unsuspecting and well-meaning citizens might think these “pre-crime” laws, which would allow law enforcement to take away the firearms of someone deemed psychologically unfit to carry one, are a good idea. But in practice, they would target citizens before a crime has even been committed and deprive people of their right to due process.
But it hasn’t stopped there. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris recently campaigned for a ban of assault-style weapons, which are most commonly used for hunting, and high-capacity magazines. Biden’s White House has also proposed enacting storage restrictions and banning “ghost guns,” among other things.
All this despite the fact that Biden is on record saying that he “never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime.”
‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers
“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”
I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.
You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:
“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”
Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.
“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)
House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment. pic.twitter.com/MSOdkKbTBO
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 13, 2022
Two points:
Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:
“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)
The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?
As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”
First Time Gun Ownership Continues To Soar
Who is buying all of the guns? The answer might surprise gun control activists…
According to The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) nearly 30%, or 5.4 million of the 18.5 million firearms purchased in the United States in 2021, went to first time gun owners. This number is down slightly from 2020’s record breaking gun sales numbers that saw 40%, or 8.4 million of the 21 million total firearms sold, going to first timers. Retailers report that 23% of customers who bought their first gun in 2020 returned to purchase another in 2021, and that nearly half of first time buyers inquired about professional firearms training, meaning many first time buyers quickly became enthusiasts who are serious about gun safety and self-defense.
For decades, gun control groups have attempted to paint gun enthusiasts as “rednecks” living in rural areas, but the data suggests that this is not the case. The NSSF survey found that 33% of first time gun buyers in 2021 were women, and that the number of African Americans purchasing firearms increased by 44%. Hispanic Americans also increased their gun purchases by 40% in 2021. Mark Olivia, NSSF Director of Public Affairs, notes: “Gun owners no longer fit into the tiny little boxes gun control groups wish to put us in. Today’s gun owner is younger, more urban, and more representative of the different demographic groups we see across America.”
The surge in gun sales in recent years is not confined to “red states” or areas with lenient gun ownership laws. Michigan and New Jersey top the list of states that saw the largest increase in firearm sales from January 2020 to January 2021 with 306% and 248% increases, respectively. Even Washington D.C, which has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, saw an increase in gun purchases of over 200% during the same time period. Year over year, blue-state Minnesota and red-state Alaska saw nearly identical increases in gun sales, over 100%.
Eleven Fewer Dead People
A deep dive on the Greenwood Park Mall shooting shows a clear path to even fewer dead people than that
On Sunday July 17, 2022, some dork with two rifles and a handgun attempted to shoot up the Greenwood Park Mall food court in Greenwood Indiana. In the span of only fifteen seconds he was shot eight times by private citizen Elisjsha Dicken, an 80% hit rate from forty yards with a double stack nine millimeter handgun, whereupon the dork decided to flee to the bathroom and do us all the favor of dying there. We have much to unpack about this instance, but five key points with mathematical backing show a clear path to saving hundreds of future lives, and further show why the media doesn’t want to save them. Let’s begin.
This entire engagement transpired in a gun free zone. If Mr. Dicken had followed the rules on the sign, then 11.29 additional people (by averages) would be dead. The gun free zone sign did not deter the shooter, and eleven people in that food court owe their lives to the fact that Dicken also ignored the sign. This is indisputable.
While the local Greenwood Police Department has been glowing over the efforts of Mr. Dicken, the Indiana effort to pass this law was opposed most publicly by law enforcement officials, such as Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter who testified against it. If Doug Carter had gotten his way 11.29 additional people would be dead. This is indisputable.
The official inquiry into Uvalde is not complete as of the writing of this piece. It could be that the Uvalde failure was due to chicken shit cops. It could be due to the fact that all government of all kinds moves at the speed of molasses infused mud. It could be some secret tinfoil hat conspiracy. It could be something else, or some or all of the above. We don’t know. But what we do know is response time differences matter, and we know that 11.96 people are saved when the cops aren’t involved, 11.29 in this case.
I am not someone who lives in fear of rampage shootings. I understand the statistics, which show that these things are as rare as shark attacks, and I do not live in fear of sharks. But some people do live with this fear, because different people have different risk tolerances. It seems to me that some people who live with this fear have some significant overlap with ACAB (“all cops are bastards”) messaging. If you are a rational person within either or both of those groups, and compare Uvalde to Greenwood, you must conclude that absent a non-existent magic gun evaporation fairy the best alternative is ubiquitous citizen concealed carry. This is indisputable.
I will not claim that CNN’s stated goal is to glorify rampage shooters, but that’s the exact effect CNN’s behavior has in the mind of a potential rampage shooter. If CNN reversed its behavior and gave twenty five times more coverage to Dicken instead of Uvalde, then the psychological effects would dampen rampage shooters instead of inciting them. This very rampage shooter may have been spurred on by CNN’s behavior, and CNN gets 30% more rampage shootings to farm for clickbait money because of their behavior.
If the United States were to string together three consecutive incidents of rampage shooters getting plugged by private citizens within seconds, as happened in Greenwood Park Mall, and CNN were to give each of them the sorts of coverage they give to Uvalde, the rampage shooter dorks would be too scared to try it. They’d stay in their basement playing XBox instead of shooting people, and the second order effects of constitutional carry would exceed 11.96 saved per incident, because there would be fewer incidents. CNN not covering rampage shootings at all would reduce rampage shootings by one third. If they elevated coverage of failed rampage shootings stopped by citizens, they’d probably reduce them by an additional third.
But they don’t want to do that, because they’re hemorrhaging money. They need as many of these things to transpire as possible to make their bottom line. They are beholden to Moloch, trapped in a cycle that gets people killed, and the only way I can figure out of this cycle is to produce a lot more citizen shooters like Dicken.
The only way out is to shoot our way out and it’s CNN’s fault.
The Good Samaritan With A Gun In Indiana Serves To Refute Four Common Gun Control Myths
On Monday, a good samaritan with a gun averted a catastrophe at an Indiana mall. Douglas Sapirman, a 20-year old man brought more than 100 rounds of ammunition and three rifles: a Sig Sauer M400 rifle he bought in March 2022; an M&P15 rifle that was found in the mall bathroom and bought in March 2021; and a Glock 33 pistol discovered on his body. In the span of a few minutes, Sapirman fired 24 rounds, killed three people, and injured two others.
But Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year old man, was shopping at the mall with this girlfriend. And he was carrying a concealed pistol. The New York Times describes his heroics:
Chief Jim Ison of the Greenwood Police Department called the bystander’s actions “nothing short of heroic,” identifying him as Elisjsha Dicken of Seymour, Ind.
He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound, and, as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,” Chief Ison said at a news conference where he described surveillance video footage of the shooting. . . .
All the victims were shot by Mr. Sapirman, who fired 24 rounds, Chief Ison said. Mr. Dicken fired 10 rounds, killing the gunman as he tried to retreat to a mall bathroom where he had spent an hour apparently preparing for the attack. . . . .
Over the past two years, the relatives told the police, the gunman had frequently practiced shooting at a range in Greenwood, which is roughly 15 miles south of Indianapolis. . . .
When the police arrived, they handcuffed Mr. Dicken and took him to a station for questioning, where security camera footage confirmed his description of the events. Chief Ison said that the police could not determine whether Mr. Dicken had a gun permit, but that he was carrying his Glock 9-millimeter handgun legally under the state’s constitutional carry law.
“This young man, Greenwood’s good Samaritan, acted within seconds, stopping the shooter and saving countless lives,” Mayor Mark Myers said on Monday.
This amazing story is simply one data point, but it serves to refute four myths about gun control.
First, a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Recently, Eugene catalogued other similar instances of defensive gun use.
Second, constitutional carry ensures that good samaritans can carry, even if they do not satisfy onerous carry regimes. I imagine that if this incident happened in New York, the good samaritan would be indicted for illegal possession of a firearm.
Third, a common argument in favor of “high capacity” magazine bans is that defensive gun use never needs more than a few bullets. Here, the good samaritan used ten bullets, and he could have needed even more. In California, for example, magazines are limited to ten rounds. Had the good samaritan needed one more bullet to drop the assailant, he would have been out of luck in California.
Fourth, it is commonly argued that a person armed with a handgun cannot take down a person armed with larger rifles. This incident proves that myth is wrong.
It is difficult to generalize from a single incident, but the situation in Indiana serves to push back against many of the common gun control myths.
Update: I didn’t realize that Indiana’s constitutional carry went into effect on July 1, 2022. Had this event happened a month earlier, the good samaritan may have been in violation of the state’s carry law. The NY Times has some more details:
Mike Wright, manager of the Luca Pizza di Roma in the mall’s food court, remembers taking shelter when the firing started and then emerging when it stopped to see the bystander behind a low-slung wall with his handgun trained on the assailant he had shot to death.
“He stood there maybe 25 or 30 feet from the body and held that pistol pointed at him until law enforcement arrived,” Mr. Wright remembered on Tuesday. “The good Samaritan guy seemed poised and under control. He appeared to be very disciplined.” Jim Ison, the local police chief, went further, saying that his engagement with the gunman, who had killed three people, was “nothing short of heroic.”
But along with the horror, drama and acclaim came a roaring and rekindled controversy in a country united in revulsion over its ceaseless plague of gun violence, yet bitterly divided over a loosening of gun restrictions like the Indiana law, passed this year, that allowed the bystander, Elisjsha Dicken, 22, to carry his 9-millimeter handgun in the first place. . . .
Chief Ison said the police found no indication that Mr. Dicken had a permit for the handgun. But the chief said he was carrying it legally under the new law. In a brief interview, Mr. Dicken’s lawyer, Guy A. Relford, described his client as an “all-American Indiana boy,” and declined to provide any specific information about him or the mall encounter.
Update 2: The Greenwood Police now report that the Good Samaritan acted quickly. In the span of 15 seconds (not 2 minutes), he fired 10 rounds, eight of which hit the assailant. And his first shot hit the assailant from 40 yards!
That is some top-level accuracy.
With the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, millions of common AR-15 style rifles hit the market, yet annualized homicides by rifle continued to trend downward. GOA opposes any new bans on these commonly owned weapons.
Well, to be honest, in a ‘free country’, I’ve never thought that the police could prevent any crime. That requires an authoritarian Police State the likes of which would be on par with North Korea. The poor people who always believed this, were always wrong, and that’s what’s sad; they were delusional
Confidence in Law Enforcement to Prevent Mass Shootings Plummets
A new poll from Convention of States Action and the Trafalgar Group shows Americans no longer trust local and federal law enforcement to stop mass shootings. This outcome should be no surprise after a long string of mass shootings where law enforcement knew the perpetrator before the tragedy.
The tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is the latest example. However, school officials and law enforcement were aware of the risks posed by the shooter in Parkland, Fla., and the other mass shooting tragedies since then. It seems the left’s preoccupation with social justice rather than criminal justice prevents law enforcement at all levels from taking proactive action to prevent violence. The social justice push ended stop and frisk in New York City and ensured red flag laws in Illinois and New York were useless.
These examples may explain why a majority of voters report they are not confident local authorities can prevent a mass shooting before it happens. Sixty-two percent of voters say they are not sure their local law enforcement or federal agents could identify and stop a violent person before they started a mass shooting. More than a quarter (26.9%) report they are not confident at all. Only 9.8% indicated they are very confident in their local authorities’ ability to prevent a mass shooting.
Uvalde officers not immediately and aggressively confronting the gunman in the elementary school was reminiscent of law enforcement failures in the Parkland shooting. “Americans watched in horror as an active shooter was permitted to rampage through a school while the police stood outside and did absolutely nothing. Over and over again, citizens are given the clear message that—when it comes to protecting loved ones—you’re on your own,” said Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States Action.
Americans are painfully aware of the tragic results in these situations and believe in the “good guy with a gun” more than the gun grabbers would like. According to the poll, a plurality believes their fellow citizen with a firearm is the best protection for them and their family in a mass shooting situation. Almost 42% of voters believe that an armed citizen would be their best protection if they were caught in a mass shooting event. Local police retained the confidence of 25.1%, and 10.3% had the most faith in federal agents. Almost one-quarter said none of the above.
Results indicating how many respondents feel they will best protect themselves and their families would be an interesting supplement. Democrats appear the most fatalistic, with a plurality of 33.9% saying they do not trust anyone to protect them and their family in a mass shooting event. But, they are still the party pushing for strict gun control. Meanwhile, 70.4% of Republicans trust armed citizens the most, while only 16.8% and 1.6% trust local or federal law enforcement.
Yet, somehow, our leaders in Congress think more gun laws are the answer. The recent bi-partisan gun law does little to prevent these tragedies, especially in an environment where citizens are losing trust in law enforcement. “At the same time, we’re told guns are the problem, and we should give up our right to self-defense,” Meckler noted. “Voters are not stupid. They understand that responsible citizens offer the best means of protecting our schools, homes, and communities in this country. Pursuing such policies is not only bad politics, it puts all of us at risk.”
As if to prove the point made by a plurality of voters, an armed citizen stopped a mass shooter in a mall food court in Indiana yesterday. According to law enforcement, the gunman shot three people fatally and injured two Sunday evening before a good guy with a gun shot and killed him. The shooter entered the mall with a rifle and several magazines. Greenwood Police Dept. Chief Jim Ison said, “The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began.” The poll ended before reports of this shooting appeared in the news cycle.
A legally armed citizen recently thwarted another mass shooting in West Virginia. A woman used her pistol to shoot a man who had returned to a graduation party with a rifle. He had been in a verbal altercation with the partygoers earlier in the day. “This lady was carrying a lawful firearm,” Lt. Tony Hazelett of the Charleston Police Department said. “A law-abiding citizen who stopped the threat of probably 20 or 30 people getting killed. She engaged the threat and stopped it. She didn’t run from the threat. She engaged it preventing a mass casualty event here in Charleston.”
Examples like these may be why states like Texas, Georgia, and others are passing open and constitutional carry laws. Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed constitutional carry in March of this year. As of July 1, no legal gun owner in Indiana is required to have a carry permit after passing the required background check. That law may have made all the difference for the Hoosiers in the mall on Sunday.
The Greenwood Mall Shooting Should End Claims of the Danger of Permitless Concealed Carry.
During the recent attempted mass shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana, a 22-year old man who was lawfully carrying a pistol stopped the killing. For this heroic action, he’s been called “good Samaritan” by local law enforcement. Even the owners of the mall, (who ban guns on their properties praised his actions. That got under the skin of anti-gun activists.
Why? If they were forced to be honest about it like the main character in the 1997 film Liar Liar, they’d have to admit that a quintessential case of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun is utterly devastating to their case against civilian gun rights.
Sadly (for them) the facts keep coming in, and they continue to be very bad for the gun control industry’s agenda. Not only does Greenwood Park clearly demonstrate that permitless carry (a.k.a. constitutional carry) saves lives, but one of the key arguments against permitless carry was also destroyed.
Constitutional Carry Allowed Lives To Be Saved
Recent reporting from WRTV News sheds light on an important detail in how this mass shooting was stopped . . .
According to [Greenwood Police Chief James] Ison, [Eli] Dicken did not have a permit for his handgun, but due to the passage of the “Constitutional Carry” bill in Indiana, he was legally carrying the weapon.
“I am 100% certain that many more people would have died last night if it wasn’t for his heroism,” Ison said.
If there’s a more devastating message for the forces of gun control, I don’t know what it would be.
A New Report Casts Doubt on the Assumption That Gun Law Violators Are a Public Menace
The vast majority of federal firearm offenses involve illegal possession, often without aggravating conduct or a history of violence.
A new report on federal firearm offenses shows that the vast majority involve illegal possession, often without aggravating circumstances or a history of violence. The data undermine the assumption that people who violate gun laws are predatory criminals who pose a serious threat to public safety. They also highlight the racially disproportionate impact of such laws, which is especially troubling given their excessive breadth.
In FY 2021, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) reports, 89 percent of federal firearm offenders were legally disqualified from owning guns, typically because of a felony record. Half of those cases involved “aggravating criminal conduct.” But in the other half, the defendant’s “status as a prohibited person solely formed the basis of the conviction.”
The aggravating conduct, which triggered sentencing enhancements under the USSC’s guidelines, covered a wide range.
In 11 percent of the cases involving aggravating conduct, “an offender or co-participant discharged a firearm.” In 4 percent of the cases where a gun was fired, someone was killed; someone was injured in 18 percent of those cases.
Some cases involved a stolen gun, a gun with an “altered or obliterated serial number,” or a prohibited weapon, such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun. Some defendants were engaged in gun trafficking. In more than a quarter of the cases, “the firearm facilitated, or had the potential to facilitate, another felony offense (most commonly drug trafficking).” That last category would include drug dealers who never threatened or injured anyone but kept or carried guns for self-defense.
As you would expect, aggravating factors resulted in relatively long prison sentences. The average was 55 months for cases involving stolen firearms or guns with altered serial numbers, 58 months in cases involving a prohibited weapon, 62 months in cases involving gun trafficking, and 119 months—nearly 10 years—in cases involving “the use of, or conspiracy to use, a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” In other words, the combination of drug possession and gun possession can be enough to put someone behind bars for a decade, which starkly illustrates the interaction between those two kinds of prohibitions.
In half of the cases involving “prohibited persons,” the defendant “did not engage in additional aggravating conduct.” The average sentence for such defendants was about three years. Even in those cases, you might surmise, the defendants’ prior criminal records probably indicated violent tendencies that justified sending them to prison for possessing a gun. But that is not necessarily true.
Sen. Chris Murphy Strangely Silent After His ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Theory Goes Down in Flames
As we previously reported, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) appallingly declared in a tweet last Tuesday that the fact that it took the Uvalde police so long to respond to the horrific Robb Elementary School mass shooting “puts to bed, forever” the “good guy with a gun” scenario often cited by Second Amendment defenders in their arguments.
“We’ve always known it was a gun industry created lie, designed to sell more guns,” he also wrote. “Now we just have the gut wrenching proof”:
While the chilling 77-minute police response video from Uvalde was indeed gut-wrenching, it in no way proved Murphy’s point – in fact, it proved just the opposite for reasons I and thousands of others explained to him in response to his remarks.
In the aftermath of the deadly Greenwood, Indiana mall mass shooting Sunday where three were killed and two were injured, Murphy has gone silent on his “good guy with a gun” theory – perhaps because Greenwood Police Chief James Ison noted in a press conference that the shooter was shot dead “almost as soon as he began” by a “good Samaritan,” a 22-year-old unidentified man who Ison said was “lawfully carrying” his firearm:
“The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop that shooter almost as soon as he began,” Ison told reporters during a press conference on Sunday night.
Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers also confirmed that the suspect was “shot by an armed individual,” whom he called a “good Samaritan.”
“This person saved lives tonight,” Myers said in a statement late Sunday. “On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”
Silence from Gun Prohibitionists After Armed Citizen Stops Mall Shooter
Once again, gun prohibition lobbying groups are locked in silence after a legally-armed 22-year-old intervened quickly to fatally shoot a would-be mass killer who opened fire at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Ind., in an action police are hailing as heroic.
“The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began,” Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison told a press briefing Sunday evening.
Reuters quoted Greenwood Mayor Mark Meyers, who said in a prepared statement, “We do know that someone we are calling a ‘Good Samaritan’ was able to shoot the assailant and stop further bloodshed. This person saved lives tonight. I am grateful for his quick action and heroism.”
It is not the first time an armed private citizen has killed a killer. According to the FBI, last year armed citizens stopped six “active shooters.” In four of those cases, the perpetrator was killed. In each case, the gun ban lobby was mum.
CNN noted in its coverage of the shooting, “It’s rare to have an armed bystander attack an active shooter, according to a data analysis published by The New York Times.”
“There were at least 433 active shooter attacks in the US from 2000 to 2021, according to the data analysis,” CNN added. “Active shooter attacks were defined as those in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place.”
“Of those 433 active shooter cases, an armed bystander shot the attacker in 22 of the incidents. In 10 of those, the ‘good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer, the Times reported.”
Three people were killed and two others wounded before the unidentified armed citizen intervened. However, authorities have suggested things could have been much worse if the killer had been able to continue his mayhem.
There is a small bit of irony reported by Reuters, which notes the mall is owned by the Simon Property Group, and they have a “no guns” policy. Here is the mall’s Code of Conduct found online:
While visiting this mall, the following general activities will not be accepted:
- Violations of the law
- Any activity that threatens the safety of our guests, tenants and/or employees
- Any activity that threatens the well-being of the property
- Any activity that disrupts our pleasant, family-oriented shopping environment
- Any activity inconsistent with the general purpose of the property, which is shopping, dining, visiting theaters or offices for business purposes
- Any activity that would disrupt the legitimate business of the property and its tenants
Examples of specific activities that are prohibited include but are not limited to:
- Disruptive profanity, vulgar or threatening language
- Unnecessarily blocking walkways, roadways or storefronts
- Running, horseplay or disorderly conduct of any nature
- Excessive loitering
- Operating unauthorized recreational and/or personal transportation devices in the shopping center
- No firearms or illegal weapons
“The center is a privately owned property. Guests who do not act responsibly may be asked to leave. If they refuse to leave the property, they may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass.”
Clearly, the dead gunman violated virtually all of these rules, while the armed citizen apparently violated only the last tenet.
Greenwood Park Mall posted this statement on its website:
“We grieve for the victims of yesterday’s horrific tragedy at Greenwood Park Mall. Violence has no place in this or any other community. We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect.”
For the parents that don’t like this new policy; If I were on the school board, I’d suggest the district have one school with no armed security at all, and send all their children there. Then make sure that it was widely known that all the schools, except for that one, did have armed teachers as well as armed security officers.
Cobb school board approves measure to create new position that will allow some employees to carry guns
The school board approved the measure with a vote of 4-2.
COBB COUNTY, Ga. — The Cobb County School Board approved a measure Thursday evening during its meeting to create a new position for some employees to carry guns on school campuses. The measure, however, does not include teachers.
The school board approved the measure with a vote of 4-2. Teachers or anyone who oversees a classroom will not be allowed to carry weapons.
The moves comes weeks after a gunman walked inside of Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas and killed 19 students and two teachers.
However, even with the mass shooting in mind, Thursday night’s vote in Cobb County didn’t come without controversy.
A group of protests delayed the meeting as some chanted “delay the vote.” School board member Dr. Jaha Howard tried to get a motion passed to move the vote to next month, but the board voted against it.
Some parents were outraged over the policy. Laura Judge believes the move could be dangerous.
“You have younger kids that are curious and they’re looking for different things, I don’t want them to happen upon a weapon and then you have older kids that are bigger than some of these individuals and I don’t want them to wrestle a weapon away,” said Judge, who is a parent.
Alisha Thomas Searcy, running for Georgia’s state school superintendent, said the language in the policy is too vague.
“We’re talking about the lives of children, the lives of educators, that deserves the time and attention and thoroughness to sit down with professionals, law enforcement in particular to make sure the right policy is in place,” Searcy said.
With the new measure, employees carrying a gun would be reporting to public safety and would also have to be trained in judgment, pistol shooting, marksmanship, and have a review of current laws relating to the use of force and self-defense. There will also be psychological screening and a background check conducted.
The superintendent can waive the training requirements if the employee has already received law enforcement or military training. The superintendent also has a say in what types of weapons can be used.
Superintendent Chris Ragsdale said the armed employees would not be identified; he said keeping that part a secret will help prevent would-be attackers.
Church Pastor Sees Crime, Offers Gun and Self Defense Class
AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) — The recent crime wave is pushing a local pastor to organize a series of classes to keep churchgoers safe.
Church is typically the place you attend to find peace. But there is a lot of unrest nationally and locally with pockets of criminal activity. So, the leader of one faith facility wants to make sure that his congregation and the community are ready.
“This is my family and I will do everything to protect them,” said Macedonia Church of Augusta Pastor Gregory Fuller.
He may teach people about how to guard their faith each week. But he will soon offer three classes focusing on how to escape the trials of life, an unlikely encounter with crime.
“Hearing about the lady who was attacked at the Augusta Mall. The elderly lady attacked, robbed and then hit. That really let me know that we need to do something to protect our women, in particular,” he explained.
Pastor Fuller said some of his members were harassed and threatened in town. And with the increase in other crimes, Macedonia is rolling out Gun Safety, Women’s Self Defense and Fire and Fellowship gun range style classes, teaching people how to use a weapon, store it and thwart off an attacker without one.
“Most of my calls are from the local gun club that I teach at,” said Amontre Adams, Black Marshal Precision, LLC. Firearms Instructor. “They help me promote my classes. But now, I’m seeing a bigger increase of people outside of the gun club contacting me.”
While there is a big interest in firearms, Adams told us people need to seek out classes to know exactly what they are doing. But despite preparation, when the time comes, it could all backfire.
“When it hits the fan, you will devolve back to your lowest level of training,” Adams said.
The three free events:
- Gun Safety – Macedonia Church of Augusta – July 23rd – 10:00 am
- Women’s Self Defense Class (FLAG “Fight Life A Girl”) – Macedonia Church of Augusta – July 30th – 9:00 am- 12:00 pm
- Fire and Fellowship to practice shooting firearms – Name and directions provided upon registration – August 6th – 9:00 am – 11:00 am
It’s not guns. It’s the hands the guns are in.
Countries with strict gun control hit by recent mass shootings and gun violence
Denmark, South Africa, and Sweden have all attempted to combat gun violence despite strict restrictions
South Africa, Denmark, and Sweden have been combating a wave of gun violence and mass shootings despite strict gun control laws in all three countries.
South Africa was the latest to see a mass shooting, with at least 19 people being killed in two separate shootings last week in Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg. In Johannesburg, 15 people were killed and many more injured when a gunman opened fire on patrons in a bar. A similar scene played out the same night in Pietermaritzburg, where two men entered an area bar and opened fire on patrons there, killing four people an injuring eight.
The two shootings happened despite tight gun regulations in the country, with GunPolicy.org rating South Africa’s firearms regulations as “restrictive.” Civilians in the country are not allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons without a special endorsement, while handgun ownership is permitted but only after obtaining a license under specific circumstances.
South Africa’s strict restrictions have led to a large black market for guns in the country, with almost 13,000 people being arrested in the country for illegal possession of firearms in 2020/2021, according to the Associated Press.
You Y-O-U are your own ‘first responder’.
You Y-O-U are the only one that you can depend on to defend yourself.
No Policeman, or any other Law Enforcement officer, in fact any of the school staff -by Supreme Court decisions Deshaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales – have any responsibility, or are required, to do ANYTHING to defend, protect, or save you or your children who still happen to attend public schools.
No Law Enforcement doctrinal change makes one bit of difference. If some officers happen to do the ‘right thing’ and immediately advance on an active shooter and take him out, all to the good. But there’s nothing, besides an officer’s internal morality and sense of personal duty, that can make them do anything other than make sure they’ve used some hand sanitizer.
Where does anyone read ‘Need’ anywhere in the 2nd amendment?
An Expert Answers Democrats’ Most Burning Question: Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15?
It’s a cry we hear time and again: Why does anyone need a black, spookily-shaped, mysterious “weapon of war” — which has never been used by the U.S. military?
Contrary to frequently wild framing, the AR-15 is simply the modern iteration of a basic rifle. Take Daniel Boone’s “Old Tick Licker,” fast-forward 270 years, and you get something lighter, more capacious, more accurate, and more easily accessorized.
But why should you — or Daniel’s great (times six) grandchildren — own one? Via a recent video, gun guru Colion Noir fights that burning question with a well’s worth of water.
In case you’re unfamiliar, the Houston-based activist and attorney has hosted NRATV and spoken at the National Rifle Association’s convention; his pro-2A YouTube channel boasts over two million subscribers, and he’s appeared as featured guest on The Joe Rogan Experience as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.
As for why anyone needs an AR, Colion offers a handful of reasons — one for each finger.
But first, he makes clear, “The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. … [T]here isn’t a ‘need’ requirement for which gun you can use under the Second Amendment.”
Now on to the list…
Armed Self-Defense Is Under Attack In The U.S.A.
Is armed self-defense a basic human right? The question may seem rhetorical, even nonsensical to a rational mind. “Of course, armed self-defense is a basic human right,” you would say. Or is it?
In the countries of the EU it isn’t; nor is armed self-defense acknowledged and accepted as a fundamental human right in the countries that comprise the British Commonwealth.
But, what about the United States? Do Americans have a right to armed self-defense?
The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes it plain that Americans do have a natural law right of armed self-defense. And the seminal Second Amendment holdings in Heller, McDonald, and, most recently, in Bruen explicitly assert that. So, why does that remain a question for us? But a question for us it is, disturbing as it is.
The Globalist elite puppet-masters and the Marxist internationalists do not acknowledge—in fact do not recognize—the right.
Of course, it should not matter what these creatures think. But as long as Americans vote their proxies into public office, the right of armed self-defense remains, in practice an open question in many jurisdictions across the Country, despite the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and irrefutable U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The fact remains that in the U.S. the natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be denied, ignored, dismissed, or abrogated.
The right of armed self-defense is itself subsumed in the broader category of the right of self-defense for personal survival, by whatever means.
Armed self-defense simply means that a person has the natural law right to possess the best means for ensuring both his physical survival and his autonomy of self against those forces that dare crush body, or mind, or spirit. For centuries that best means of self-defense was a firearm. And it remains so.