Category: Safety

5th-graders learn to shoot guns by using school gym as target range

A school district in Wyoming posted pictures of 5th and 6th grade students shooting targets with air rifles in a school gym.

A school district in Wyoming recently used a gymnasium as a shooting range, training fifth and sixth grade students in marksmanship during PE. Hot Springs County School District #1, in the small town of Thermopolis, shared photos of the sharpshooting session in a Feb. 2 Facebook post, and it quickly caught the attention of thousands.

McClatchy News has obtained a screengrab of the Facebook post, which is no longer publicly available. In the pictures, the children are seen aiming air rifles across the gym at a set of targets propped up against the bleachers with what appears to be plywood.

Often a child’s introduction to the world of firearms, air rifles generally use gas stored in a small canister to propel a BB or pellet out of the barrel at relatively high speed. While far less lethal than true firearms, they can cause serious harm in some circumstances. “All students passed their safety test and have been sharpening their skills,” the post said.

As of the morning of Feb. 8, the post had garnered 13,000 reactions and 5,700 comments and had been shared over 60,000 times. For perspective, the population of Thermopolis is around 2,700.

“This is what America needs more of,” one comment read.
“Education and responsible firearm ownership.”
“This is so awesome! Probably one of the safest schools in the country too,” a commenter wrote.
“I need to find a school like this for my son once he’s old enough!”
“CA masks their kids, Wyoming teaches marksmanship,” said another.

Of the nearly 6,000 comments, most are in support of the district.

I Was Anti-Gun And A Pregnant Mother When Home Invaders Broke Into My House

(SOFREP invites reader submissions for publication. Today we offer you this harrowing story from one of our members named Marcie who writes about how a home invasion while she was pregnant and home alone with her other child changed her entire worldview when it came to gun ownership.)

Few people would look at me now and think that, but yes, I used to believe that guns were a danger to society.

The media likes to show us gun violence all the time, with the insinuation that it’s the gun, not the person, who did the crime. Rarely do they show you examples of guns being used in self-defense. Most people who promote gun control live in quiet neighborhoods where residents see guns as almost alien.

But if you have ever lived in a dangerous place, then you know the importance of guns. That’s what happened to me when I moved to Tolleson, Arizona, two years ago.

I moved there to live with my husband, who is a firefighter. After moving, my husband needed to leave town for training. So I was left home alone, pregnant with our child. I didn’t mind too much, as I thought it would be a little staycation. I couldn’t go anywhere, anyway, since our clunker of a car was in the shop.

In hindsight, I should have known that no car being at our home for an extended period made the wrong people think that both of us were gone. Sure enough, that happened. When two thieves broke into my home through the kitchen door, it happened so suddenly that I had no plan of action. My heart racing, I ran into the bathroom where I thought it was safe and took out my phone.

I frantically started to call 911. However, my phone could not get through to a responder. The bathroom was a dead zone for phone service where I lived. However, my phone was connected to my WiFi. I contacted my sister on Facebook, and she managed to call 911.

As I waited for the police to come, my heart continued to race. What if the police did not respond in time? There are many cases of the police taking too long to respond to a situation that requires immediate action, as many factors can delay response time.

As I heard the thieves rustling around the house, I wondered what they would do. Steal my TV or jewelry? That was replaceable. However, what if they found me and did something horrifying to my unborn child and me?

All these worries soon subsided, luckily, as the police did arrive in only a few minutes. After seeing the police approach my door, the thieves immediately ran away, their pockets empty. One bystander told me the thieves were armed as I was filing a report. Once again, those thoughts about what the thieves could have done to me immediately raced to my head.

It was at that point I realized I needed to arm myself. Since then, I have never left home without a pistol. I have to protect myself, my husband, and our two-year-old daughter. Chances are, you have someone you want to save. I recommend arming yourself as well with an easy-to-access pistol.

Speaking of pistol, what’s my favorite? As a woman, I wanted something easily concealable that I could fire at a moment’s notice. I wanted something powerful yet easy to use for a more petite frame.

Upon research, I chose the SIG Sauer P365. This 9mm pistol is a little under 6 inches wide and slightly above 4 inches tall, making it perfect for concealing. Despite its small frame, it holds ten rounds and packs quite a wallop. Any woman can use it to even the odds if a thief enters their home. With its small trigger, it doesn’t matter how small you are. You can fight back.

That’s my story. Since having a gun, I’ve felt safer, and I’ve found a new hobby to enjoy. If you’ve been interested in owning a firearm, now is the time to do so. I hope this article helped you learn where I’m coming from when advocating for guns.

BLUF:
The lie is that mandatory training saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
Gun-control laws often disarm minorities, women, and the poor.
The lie is that mandatory firearms storage saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
The lie is that gun-laws disarm criminals.
The truth is that gun-control laws disarm law-abiding victims.
That tells me that one purpose of gun-control is to impose higher costs on gun owners rather than to save lives.
The lie is that guns cause violence.
The truth is that criminals cause violence and government officials have failed to control violent criminals.

Painful Lies and Boring Facts About Being Armed

I’m in a rut. I read the endless stream of gun-control proposals and I have the same reaction time after time. Gun-control advocates promise us safety in return for further restricting the ability of ordinary citizens to go armed. Those excuses would be laughable if they didn’t cost so many lives. It is easier for us to recognize the false-claims of gun-control if we have a sense of proportion and perspective. Then we can see it is a step backwards when we create a larger problem as we work to solve a smaller one. If we actually want to save lives then we have to see the big picture and do no harm.

Ordinary citizens defend themselves with a gun several thousand times a day. Our armed defense stops tens of thousands of robberies, assaults, and rapes. It saves thousands of lives a year. Many thousands. Despite that immense virtue, nothing is perfect. We are human so there are problems with armed defense.

Gun-control runs into problems precisely because armed defense saves so many lives. To change our laws and save a few more lives tomorrow, we can’t reduce the many lives we save each day. It is hard to pass a gun-control law that will do no harm. Let me give you an example to make that clear.

Each week I analyze how ordinary people defended themselves with a firearm. I advocate for instruction, training, and practice. I encourage people to plan for lethal and non-lethal defense. We talk about avoidance and de-escalation all the time. Sure, I want gun owners to be trained, but I have perspective.

Week after week we see criminals break into a home. Grandma grabs her gun and says she is armed. The robber runs away because grandma wasn’t the victim he expected. The great news is that eight-times-out-of-ten the bad guys runs away before we have to fire a shot. I don’t see where mandatory safety training could make this self-defense situation significantly safer or more effective. 8-out-of-10 times it is already good enough.

Proportions are crucial. Firearms accidents are rare but criminal attacks are common. Yes, I ask gun owners to take training, but I know that costs money, takes time, and demands energy. Disarming ordinary citizens until they take training means that more good people will be disarmed. Maybe mandatory training saved a few people from firearms accidents but we condemned more of them to be the unarmed victims of violent crime. The unarmed victims will have to surrender or go against a criminal attacker with their bare hands. Criminals plan their attacks to beat an unarmed victim. I don’t want that, and few of us do.

Continue reading “”

Gun Buying Advice For Women, From a Woman

I used to be vehemently opposed to firearms because of the way my mom’s negative view of them influenced me as I grew up. It wasn’t until around 19 years old that my boyfriend at the time gave me my first introduction to firearms. He was very patient and taught me the basics of how to shoot. I loved it. I no longer felt negatively towards firearms, but I never really got into them, either. I honestly didn’t see a reason to. I didn’t feel I needed one for protection and didn’t have a desire to go shooting for fun or to hunt. It just wasn’t who I was at the time. It wasn’t until I met my now-husband that I got heavily into firearms. It was as if I had discovered a part of my true calling.

Continue reading “”

Armed Defense is always a Matter of Time

I know that you’re way smarter than this, but I keep hearing new gun owners get bad advice. We hear it everywhere, from the news to the lunch counter. I’m not criticizing either party because I suspect they are simply repeating something they’ve heard. This is important because we can invent all sorts of complicated schemes as we plan our defense. It is easy to forget that time controls almost everything as we defend ourselves. Eventually, we remember that the bad guys arrive with a plan. We get to defend ourselves, our family, and our friends with what’s physically within reach and mentally within reach. Let’s look at some common suggestions and see how they measure against the clock.

Continue reading “”

Constitutional Carry and Letting Our Neighbors Go Armed

It is more dangerous when honest men and women face criminals barehanded, and safer when the good guys are armed. That isn’t hard to understand. It is easy to calculate the additional lives we’d save each year if a state allows honest people to carry guns in public. I can explain it in a minute. I will, but the real mystery is why we’re still talking about fantasy problems while violent criminals are killing our neighbors. We’re acting as if our bad dreams were more real than the bodies with chalk marks around them. Part of that problem is political. Politicians appeal to our fantasies and we’re suckers for that. Politicians also suck up to anti-gun billionaires to get campaign contributions. Ultimately, voters like us are the problem when we hide behind sound-bite solutions.

Back in the real world, disarming our neighbors costs lives.

When you take even the shallowest look at violence then you notice that an armed attacker usually overpowers an unarmed victim. Criminals may break the laws but they are not stupid. They choose the tools that work. To quote one thug, ‘Guns and knives make people so generous.’

Robbers sometimes threaten to shoot us even when they don’t have a gun. Criminals only use guns in one-seventh of violent crimes. Unfortunately, violent criminals wait until they have an advantage in strength, in number, or in surprise. Rather than struggle with the insoluble problem of knowing if the robber’s threat is real, the real solution is for good men and women to go armed.

We don’t need clever calculations to know how many lives are saved when the victims are armed. We know that about 1.7 million legal gun owners use a firearm in self-defense each year. We know how many people live in each state and already have their carry permits. We know the rate of violent crime in each state, and we learned that about 30 percent of adults will carry concealed if the carry permit is optional. We even know how often people with their carry permits actually go armed in public. We know what happens because we asked and because 21 states already have a form of permit-optional concealed carry.

In most states, we’re talking about saving thousands of lives a year. We can argue about the clearest way to explain the answer, but the calculations only take junior-high-school math.

Continue reading “”

Bill aims to erase “duty to retreat” in New York law

ALBANY — When threatened by an aggressor outside their homes, people in New York, under current law, have a duty to retreat — if possible — before resorting to force.

Now, an upstate lawmaker, state Sen. George Borrello, R-Chautauqua County, has introduced a measure that would scrap the duty to retreat requirement, framing his proposal as a public safety measure that will extend the right of self-defense and provide potential legal immunity in civil lawsuits against people who shoot those threatening to do harm.

New York law, as written now, imposes no duty to retreat on people when they are in their dwellings. Borrello said there should be no inconsistency in the law. His bill would remove the self-defense restrictions in instances when people face a violent aggressor outside the home setting, as long as the person facing the threat is at a location where she or he can legally be.

Continue reading “”

Inspecting the FN 502™ Tactical Manual Safety

FN America, LLC, has become aware that a very limited number of FN 502 Tactical pistols in the field may have an improperly installed manual safety. In these cases, the external safety lever will not function as designed and may result in unintended firing. To ensure the pistol’s safe operation, FN is asking owners of the FN 502 Tactical to suspend use of their pistol and perform a function check to verify the manual safety is operating correctly, following the inspection procedure below.

This safety bulletin applies to FN 502 Tactical pistols with a serial number range lower than LR007999. If your serial number is above this range, it is not subject to this bulletin.
This safety bulletin provides instructions on how you may check to see if your FN 502 Tactical is affected.
However, if you would like FN to inspect your pistol, please contact FN Customer Service at 1-800-635-1321, ext. 145. You may also take your pistol to your local firearms dealer or gunsmith for inspection.

 

Before inspecting your FN 502 Tactical, ensure your pistol and magazine are unloaded and that there is no live ammunition in your work area. For more details on safe handling and unloading, please reference your owner’s manual.

Inspection Procedure:

  1. Depress the magazine release to eject the magazine. Remove all ammunition from the magazine and the work area.
  2. With the magazine removed, pull the slide back and lock the slide to the rear by pressing the slide stop up, allowing the slide to rest against the slide stop.
  3. Carefully inspect the chamber both visually and physically to ensure no cartridge is present before continuing to step 4. Do not proceed unless you are certain your pistol is unloaded.
  4. Release the slide by pushing downward on the slide stop or by pulling rearward on the slide to disengage the slide stop and then let the slide move forward under control.
  5. Engage the manual safety and set it to the “SAFE” position (up) as shown in the photo below. Ensure that it is moved all the way into position and remains in place.
  6. With the unloaded pistol pointed in a safe direction, pull the trigger.

Note: Please do not ship any affected product to FN until FN has generated and sent to you a return label. If the firearm is not affected by this safety bulletin, no action is necessary.FN is deeply committed to providing customers with the safest, most reliable firearms possible. Patience and cooperation are appreciated as we receive, inspect and service these firearms. We will make every effort to return the product to customers within 14 days.

For questions about the safety bulletin or assistance in returning a firearm, contact the FN customer service team at 1-800-635-1321, ext. 145, or by email at customerservice@fnamerica.com.
Hours of operation are 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

Continue reading “”

Data shows there’s more diversity at a gun range than a university faculty lounge

“Gun-ownership in America is diversifying, because of safety fears,” says a headline over at The Economist. As those of us in the Second Amendment community have known for a while, the sociopolitical climate since the start of the pandemic – egregious criminal–coddling behavior by the state, releasing dangerous prisoners because of COVID, nationwide “fiery but mostly peaceful” riots, rising violent crime, looting / shoplifting, hate crimes, falling trust in law enforcement – contributed to a sudden surge in gun purchases by groups historically not inclined to own them. The Economist reported the following:

Of the 7.5m Americans who bought firearms for the first time between January 2019 and April 2021—as gun-buying surged nationwide—half were female, a fifth black and a fifth Hispanic, according to a recent study by Matthew Miller of Northeastern University and his co-authors.

The 7.5 million number may well be a low estimate; one estimate from the NSSF is that there were 8.4 million new gun owners in 2020 alone. As I’ve written before in these pages, adding up numbers for 2020 and the first half of 2021 points to a potential 11.6 million first-time gun owners. The team here at Bearing Arms has written a lot about growing diversity in the Second Amendment community. We see this not only in data collected nationally and over the long-term, but also experience it first-hand at gun ranges. (As an immigrant who grew up without guns and didn’t touch one well into his adult life, I’m living proof of this demographic shift myself.)

However, diversity is a whole lot more than ethnic bean counting or about the superficial differences – religion, sexual orientation, etc. – among us. What counts the most, in my opinion, is diversity of thought and opinion, and the ability to express those freely without the fear of retaliation or retribution. This is where I think gun owners are simply outstanding; respect for individual freedom, for not treading on someone else lest our freedoms be tread upon, appears to come naturally to lawful gun owners. There is some data on political diversity among gun owners. Anecdotally speaking, the gun owners at my local club cover the gamut from traditional blue-collar tradesmen to Ph.D. holders, from the MAGA coterie to Medicare-for-All supporters.

Contrast that with a typical university faculty lounge and the difference is night and day. There is hard data showing how limited diversity is among university faculty. They may look different, have different national origins or sexual orientations, but politically they are incredibly alike. There’s also plenty of publicly available data that shows how faculty donations to candidates for office is overwhelmingly left-wing. Consider these recent examples: 96% at Harvard University, 97% at Yale University, and 98% at Cornell University.

Continue reading “”

The Tide Is Turning On Gun Control
After two consecutive years of record violence, some on the left may be rediscovering the importance of self-defense.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, the Second Amendment did not create a right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the Second Amendment acknowledges and seeks to protect the People’s natural right to self-defense and the tools required for the exercise of that right, which obviously include firearms. This is why the amendment speaks of “the right” to arms as something already in existence and not to be infringed—rather than as something newly conferred, a point recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It should not be a polarized and partisan issue. Historically, the right of armed self-defense was understood and exercised by figures who were far from conservative or libertarian, from Eleanor Roosevelt and George Orwell to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. In a dangerous world, they understood that one’s life should not be left to the mercy of an aggressor.

In light of 2021—a second consecutive year of record violence—are some on the left rediscovering the importance of self-defense? There’s reason to think so.

Continue reading “”

The carjacking surge in Philadelphia shows why the Second Amendment is so important

Democrats routinely disparage guns and gun ownership in this country as one of the main reasons for violent crime. As soon as there is a mass shooting, Democratic politicians beat the drums for gun control legislation.

Even now, amid a violent crime surge largely resulting from failed Democratic policies in cities nationwide, they still blame guns. Yet, what goes ignored are the incidents in which guns are used for self-defense.

People are fighting back, demonstrating the importance of the Second Amendment.

Philadelphia has had a tsunami of violent crime in the past couple of years. Homicides reached an all-time high in 2021 after nearly setting a record in 2020. Carjackings have also experienced a surge in the city, going from 225 in 2019 to a whopping 720 in 2021, CBS3 reported .

The crime wave forced the Philadelphia Police Department to publish a survival guide on what to do if confronted with a carjacking. But with the city failing to protect its citizens, some have realized they must protect themselves. As a result, there are numerous stories of citizens defending themselves from carjackings by using their legally owned guns. In these incidents (with several that do not make the news), guns saved lives.

The “good guy with a gun narrative” is widely disregarded by those on the Left in the debate over guns. They continually promote the narrative that guns are evil tools that cause nothing but destruction and the loss of human life. While this is absolutely true, so is the opposite — guns save lives. According to statistics, guns are more often used to save lives than take them.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are anywhere between 30,000 to 40,000 gun-related deaths each year, with about 60% of those being suicides. Conversely, the CDC reports between 60,000 to 2.5 million incidents involving guns to save lives. The “good guy with a gun” narrative happens a lot more than the media or agenda-driven Democratic politicians like to acknowledge. The stories in Philadelphia are just some of the most recent examples.

With people needing guns to defend themselves out of necessity, the Second Amendment is needed now more than ever. Legal gun ownership can mean the difference between life and death. At a time when Democratic politicians have prioritized the safety of criminals over the welfare of the innocent, the Second Amendment could be the difference between being the victim of a violent crime or surviving one.

A Frank Discussion of Knives for Self-Defense

This article owes a lot to Marc “Animal” MacYoung, a prolific writer and thinker about self-defense issues whose work you should really check out. One of his areas of expertise is knife fighting and the use of knives in self-defense. MacYoung presents three basic considerations for knife use in a self-defense context in his must-read article on the subject, and I’m unable to improve on them:

  • A knife is a lethal force item
  • As such its legal/moral/ethical application is narrowly allowed
  • ‘self-defense’ is a legally defined term.

Any discussion of knives for self-defense has to keep these three points in mind. Legally and morally, you’re introducing a lethal weapon into the conflict—and that may have long-lasting repercussions for everyone involved. You may not intend to do lethal damage, but that’s the trick: knives can wound or kill with a touch, and in the chaos of an assault that can happen inadvertently. Another caveat: this article is about the general use of knives in self-defense, not engaging in a knife fight with another armed person. With all that having been said, let’s talk about choosing a knife as a self-defense tool.

The first step, as always, is to get familiar with your local laws on the subject. Each state—and many municipalities—has its own laws about knives: what you can carry, where you can carry, when/how you may use them, and what constitutes the legal use of lethal force (yes, that again) for self-defense. It might be a good idea to book a consultation with an attorney. Yes, that’s expensive, but it’s best to get legal advice from a professional who is bound to act on your behalf.

The second step is to consider your self-defense plan as a whole. Personal protection does not start and end with weapons; there’s a lot that goes into conflict-avoidance and safety planning other than planning for use of force. Make sure you’ve got those bases covered.

Nor should you neglect other possible self-defense tools. Even if you have a knife, you may not be able to deploy it in time, or you may need a less-lethal tool instead. Make sure to keep those options open.

Now, let’s talk about the knife you’ll be carrying. Unless you live in a rural area, you’ll probably legally and logistically be better of with a lock-bladed folding knife, one designed as an all-purpose tool. Because that’s what it’ll spend most of its time doing. Opening boxes, cutting strings and rope, and other mundane tasks are its purview. If legal in your state, there are knives made specifically for knife fighting such as the Colonel Blade or the Clinch Pick.

Finally, you’ll need some training. Probably quite a bit of training. There are numerous systems for the use of knives in self-defense out there. One that comes to mind but I have not taken is the Edged Weapons Overview course by Shivworks. I would suggest selecting a system or school that teaches both armed and unarmed techniques—you’ll likely need both if something does go wrong. I’m a big advocate of the notion that a short-range weapon like a knife exists to give you the time and space to run, so please give that some thought.

These are just some thoughts to get you started. Please reach out to me in the comments section or via email and let me know if you have any further questions or ideas. I love hearing from you.

The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: Negligence and the Robber’s Explicit Demands

I’ve just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I’d serialize it here, minus most of the footnotes (which you can see in the full PDF). I’d love to hear people’s reactions and recommendations, since there’s still plenty of time to edit it. You can also be previous posts (and any future posts, as they come up), here.

Let’s return to situation 3 from the Introduction: Craig comes to rob Danielle’s store; he is demanding money, and Danielle has reason to think that, if she doesn’t comply, he’ll injure some of the patrons. Does this make Danielle legally liable if she refuses to comply, on the theory that she has an affirmative duty to protect her business visitors, and failing to give in to the demands violates that duty?

No, several courts have ruled, expressly recognizing a “no duty” rule. The most prominent case is Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court, from the California Supreme Court:

[A] shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with the unlawful demand of an armed robber that property be surrendered…. Recognition of a duty to comply with an unlawful demand would be contrary to public policy as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct….

[T]he standard of a “reasonable prudent person under the circumstances” is the general standard of care [for property owners’ duty to protect their visitors]…. [But] in particular situations a more specific standard may be established by judicial decision, statute or ordinance.

Continue reading “”

I’ve got a phone number for him – 1-800-CRY-BABY Waaaahhhhh.

Joe Biden Complains About ‘Ridiculous’ Number of Gun Sales After Synagogue Terrorist Incident

President Joe Biden complained about the number of guns sold in the United States after an armed terrorist suspect took four hostages at a Texas synagogue on Sunday.

“There’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous,” Biden said when asked by reporters on Sunday about gun control after the incident.

Biden noted that suspect, Faisal Akram, 44, a British national, had allegedly purchased his gun on the street, before the incident.

“The guns are — we should be — the idea of background checks are critical,” he said, but admitted that “you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street.”

Biden said that country had failed to “focus as hard as we should and as consistent as we should” on issues like gun purchases, gun sales, and “ghost” guns.

Akram was killed by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, nearly eleven hours after he entered the synagogue. None of the hostages were harmed.

Biden called the incident “an act of terror” but said he did not know why Akram was demanding the release of Aafia Siddiqui, known as “Lady al-Qaeda” imprisoned at Fort Worth for trying to kill American soldiers.

“I don’t– we don’t have I don’t think there is sufficient information to know about why he targeted that synagogue, why he insisted on the release of someone who’s been in prison for over 10 years, why he was engaged, why he was using an anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli comments,” Biden said.

Just me, but if your congregation doesn’t allow for people to carry, find one that does.

Synagogue standoff shows why we need guns during worship

Imagine you’re sitting in your place of worship, and some psychopath comes in and decides no one gets to leave. His intentions are unclear, but there’s no doubt he’s dangerous. After all, he’s armed and is threatening, if not in words, then in mannerisms.

That’s the reality we saw unfold for some people in the Texas synagogue standoff over the weekend.

The FBI and local police said at a news conference Saturday night that three hostages who were held in a Colleyville synagogue for nearly 11 hours are unharmed and the hostage-taker is dead after a hostage rescue team breached the building.

Authorities said the hostage-taker was killed in a shooting but did not answer a question about whether he was shot by law enforcement or if the gunshot was self-inflicted. The man claimed to have explosives, according to statements he made on livestreamed video, but police have not commented on whether any weapons were found.

Exclusive video taken by WFAA-TV photographer Josh Stephen shows at least some of the hostages running out of a door at the synagogue just before FBI agents enter the building. The footage, shot just before 9:15 p.m., shows a man who appears to be holding a gun following the hostages as they escape, then almost immediately going back inside.

Officials said the rescued hostages are being interviewed by the FBI and will be reunited with their families as soon as possible. Authorities did not release the name of the hostage-taker or the ages of the hostages, but did confirm they were all adults.

Absolutely horrifying, to say the least.

As noted, the hostage-taker is dead. He’s also been identified by police.

The FBI on Sunday identified Malik Faisal Akram, a 44-year-old British national, as the man who held four people hostage at a Texas synagogue in an hours-long standoff Saturday before a rescue team entered the building and killed the suspect.

An FBI Hostage Rescue Team killed Akram after the hostages were released around 9 p.m. local time, the agency said. Crime scene investigators at the Beth Israel Congregation in Colleyville, Texas — about 15 miles from Fort Worth — recovered one firearm they believe belonged to Akram, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CNN.

Of course, the FBI says it doesn’t know the motive, seemingly trying to deflect from this being a case of terrorism.

And, in theory, it may not be. I don’t think that’s likely, mind you, but whatever.

However, what isn’t being talked about is how there are still people who see this who think guns shouldn’t be allowed in our houses of worship, regardless of religion.

Some will somehow delude themselves into thinking that if Texas didn’t permit guns in churches to any degree, this wouldn’t have happened. We know this to be true because the laws against taking hostages worked so well. I mean, how can you have a synagogue standoff if there’s no standoff possible? Too bad this jackwagon decided to ignore all those laws.

So, if he’d ignore them, why wouldn’t he ignore the ones saying he couldn’t bring a gun?

Yet, there have been some unconfirmed reports floating around that Beth Israel Congregation’s rabbi didn’t permit firearms in the synagogue. If that is, in fact, the case, then none of the hostages were legally allowed to carry a gun because Texas law allows places of worship to decide for themselves whether to permit firearms or not.

Had one of them been armed, the situation may have turned out very differently. Malik could have come in just the same, of course, but he may have ended up dead hours earlier, and all that would have been left for law enforcement was to clean up the mess.

That would have been a win for everyone there.

Instead, it seems they weren’t allowed to.

But again, that’s based on reports I haven’t been able to confirm just yet. If those aren’t true, well, then it’s still a stark reminder of why people need guns in churches, synagogues, and any other place of worship you care to name. This synagogue standoff was unpleasant for all involved, but we’ve seen far worse committed in places of worship.

This is bad, but I’d much rather experience a hostage situation than a mass shooting. Even if you go home, the trauma of talking about being inside during the synagogue standoff is nothing compared to the trauma of seeing people gunned down before your very eyes.

However, both can be prevented by carrying a firearm. It’s just that simple.

Update, if you haven’t already heard:

All hostages safe. Bad guy dead.

And to add. If your congregation doesn’t have some sort of security plan, get one in the works. You’re not playing the odds, you’re playing the stakes.

This is why you should always carry in Church……….

Update: Apparently the man is holding 4 members of the congregation hostage to trade for his sister who is in a federal prison for terrorist attacks on U.S. military personnel in Pakistan.

 

When the anti-self defense writer uses ‘information’ from the Brady pro gun control group, he immediately showed his views were not based on actual biblical principles, even though scriptures were used to support them. (Remember, satan himself quoted scripture for his own nefarious purpose)
But read both at your convenience

Guns or Roses?

The issue of Christians owning and using guns, especially against other humans, has been debated almost since firearms and gunpowder appeared in Europe in the 13th century. In today’s fragmented religious environment, many opinions are advanced in churches, in the public square, and on media. Seventh-day Adventist Christians, often influenced by polarizing political, social, or cultural viewpoints, debate this issue both publicly and privately. We asked two authors with contrasting opinions to engage in an imagined conversation with a respected Adventist friend who holds a different opinion about this divisive topic, each explaining their viewpoint from a Christian and Adventist biblical worldview.—Editors.

Continue reading “”

‘Just call the police’: The Insufferable White Privilege of Gun Control Advocates

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Continue reading “”

Defending Armed Self-Defense
It’s easy for many people to see the harm that guns are involved in every day in America, but much harder for them to see the harm that gun prohibition causes.

Gun control laws are wrong because they violate the right to self-defense. Gun control laws are wrong because they were historically crafted with discriminatory intent and create racially disparate outcomes today.

These are two distinct arguments against laws that limit private gun ownership. Libertarians, typically among the staunchest of fans of self-defense and self-determination, have tended to focus on the first. But the second is also important, both on its own merits and because it helps people otherwise concerned about discrimination understand why it is inconsistent to support such laws.

One can make the rights argument a couple of different ways. The first is to start from the belief, shared by many, that human beings are endowed by their Creator (or nature, or their shared humanity, or the universe, or even cultural patrimony) with certain inalienable rights, the right to self-defense among them. Once that is established, protections for those who wish to buy, keep, and use the tools of self-defense, including guns, follow close behind.

The Founders, not ones to pussyfoot around, put keeping and bearing arms right there in the Bill of Rights (although there, as in so many other places in the founding documents, one last pass by an especially pedantic copy editor could have saved the nation in general and the Supreme Court in particular quite a bit of trouble). The Founders were, at best, imperfect scribes of whatever rights people might in fact possess. But they did an astonishingly good job of capturing a laundry list of rights that the state ought not abridge, and they got them written down rather clearly and in short order, all things considered.

One need not be convinced of the existence of God-given rights to conclude that the harsher forms of gun control are unacceptable and unjust rights violations. “I contend that individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important interests,” the philosopher Michael Huemer wrote in one of the more famous modern arguments against such restrictions. While “the right to own a gun is both fundamental and derivative,” he suggests, “it is in its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it is most important.”

Continue reading “”