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.

Continue reading “”

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.

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.

Continue reading “”

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.”

 

Continue reading “”

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.”

Continue reading “”

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. 

Continue reading “”

Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.

“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’ Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”

Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .” § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.

At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.

The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2

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…

Continue reading “”

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.

Continue reading “”

Women Now Make Up the Largest Group of New Gun Owners

According to a recent study conducted by Harvard University, women now make up 42% of new gun owners accounting for nearly half of all new gun owners over the past 5-years. This number is up 14% from that same span of time and 3.5 million women joined the ranks of new gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021. An NSSF survey partially backs up this claim by the Harvard study by stating that 1/3rd of 2021’s new gun owners were women.

Keen observers of the firearms industry might have also noticed a distinct shift in the way that firearms companies are producing marketing material with many new products like the recent release of the PDP F Series being specifically marketed towards female shooters. Shooting organizations like “Shoot like a Girl” have also cropped up featuring female firearms instructors whose aim is to bring more women into shooting sports and provide them with a more comfortable environment to train in.

In the study conducted by Harvard University, one-quarter of the women surveyed said self-defense was the main reason they wanted to purchase a firearm for the first time with many citing the uptick in civil unrest and reduction of law enforcement assets during the summer of 2020. Another reason cited by many women as to why they’ve armed themselves is that many of them are now living alone and feel more comfortable having a firearm in the home for self-defense.

Regardless of what is spurring this increase in gun ownership amongst women, I think this is a net positive for the firearms industry as a whole and the women that the industry is trying to serve. Let us know if the ladies that you know are taking on an increased interest in firearms and what they are saying as to how or why they’re getting into firearms.

Failure after failure like this and it’s not so difficult these days to actually consider that they’re not ‘failures’.


BLUF
Watch for even more revelations and reactions from politicians demanding more gun control laws as this story continues to unfold. While it is clear authorities in Highland Park are focusing on prosecuting Crimo, the gun prohibition lobby has already shown its intent to use this crime to advance its agenda, despite the fact that laws anti-gunners have already pushed into place did not live up to their promise of preventing violent crime.

True to form, anti-gunners have yet to acknowledge their restrictive gun control measures did not prevent the attack, and they have quickly steered away from that inconvenient truth by demanding more laws.

World-Class Gun Control Failure: Truth About Highland Park Emerges

Predictably emerging from the intense investigation into the July 4 mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois are revelations that laws already in place to prevent such crimes failed miserably, but instead of acknowledging poor enforcement of existing statutes, anti-gun politicians and their far-left supporters simply want to pass more restrictions.

Buried in all the coverage about the Highland Park shooting that so far has claimed seven lives and left dozens more wounded was the acknowledgment by USA Today that the Chicago suburb banned so-called “assault weapons” nearly ten years ago and the Supreme Court “later declined to hear an appeal seeking to overturn the ordinance.”

Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering actually signed the gun ban ordinance, the story noted.

Fox News reported that Rotering, appearing on NBC’s “Today” show stated, “I think at some point the nation needs to have a conversation about these weekly events involving the murder of dozens of people with legally-obtained guns. If that is what our laws stand for, then I think we need to re-examine the laws.”

However, speaking on Fox News, former homicide detective and Fox News contributor Ted Williams observed,“Let me say that Illinois has some of the most stringent gun laws in this country. They have red flag laws. They have universal background checks…so all of these things were in place in some kind of way. Some way [somehow], this slipped through the cracks.”

Continue reading “”

Actually everyone should prioritize it.


Conservatives Must Prioritize The Second Amendment
We need to look at all our civil and natural rights as being connected.

Without the right to defend ourselves, all other political battles become irrelevant. At different times, for different reasons, it is perfectly acceptable for different conservatives to prioritize different issues. But at no time should any conservative compromise on the right to self-defense.

Not only is the threat of a tyrannical government ever-present, but street violence is an ever-present danger, too. The threat to life posed by a rapist in the night is just as much a threat as that from a totalitarian regime. If the conservative movement really is a pro-family movement, then no law-abiding American citizen should be denied the right to protect himself and his family.

To compromise on gun rights is to necessarily compromise on abortion, taxes, immigration, school choice, welfare, right to work, and any other political issue. All other political questions are irrelevant if you and your family are at the mercy of a tyrannical government or a violent street thug. What good is your right to free speech if it can be taken away at a point of gun? What use is your right to life if you cannot defend yourself?

Americans understand we are born with rights and it is the duty of the government to preserve those rights. But as conservatives, we understand humans and human institutions cannot always be trusted. Americans understand we are born with rights and it is the duty of the government to preserve those rights. But as conservatives, we understand humans and human institutions cannot always be trusted. Yet, knowing human nature, we also know we can trust the government not to infringe our rights if we make the prospect of doing so too costly. Officials must know they can be held to account.

As we witnessed with the resent passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Senate and House Republicans who campaigned on protecting the Second Amendment were not only willing but happy to give a win to the anti-gun left with a whole slew of new gun-control provisions for absolutely nothing in return. In fact, Utah’s Senator Mitt Romney wanted the deal to be even more extreme. Elected Republicans have this mentality because conservative voters have given them a pass to cut corners off the Second Amendment. So long as the left appears more radical than they are, voters think the GOP can do no wrong, even as our right to bear arms is eroded. They, and we, must learn you cannot claim to support the Second Amendment if you compromise on it.

If removing the right to defend yourself really made everyone safer, then perhaps the anti-gun groups would have a point. But it is just not true. According to the CDC’s analysis of several studies in 2013 during the Obama administration, there were “about 500,000 to more than 3 million” defensive gun uses per year. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives are saved by guns every year. Since nearly 70 percent of criminals committed their crimes with an illegally obtained firearm, more gun regulations will only hinder a minority of gun-related crimes.

In general, regulations only serve as barriers for lawful Americans ability to exercise their right to defend themselves and their families. Common gun-control initiatives, such as waiting periods and protracted background checks, can deny access to life-saving firearms. If a riot were to break out in your hometown, like the George Floyd riots of 2020, and you needed to protect your family that very day, a waiting period would make you and your family defenseless in your time of greatest need. Regulations like expanded background checks, which are already required for every retail gun purchase, serve as an excuse to deny Americans their rights; the background-check system is flawed, as about nine out of ten denials are the result of false positives. Additionally, the background-check system provides a paper trail so the government can expand its illegal registry of gun owners. An ATF official could easily search thousands of firearm records and produce a list of lawful gun owners’ home addresses with a simple use of Control+F. These records are the first step towards gun confiscation.

At its core, any call for gun regulation—be it on the right or left—ignores a far more worrisome problem: humanity’s capacity for evil. The anti-gun crowd targets the gun is because they are afraid of focusing on the true culprit in gun violence, namely, the person behind the gun. There is rarely an attempt to understand why a young man would become so twisted as to murder innocent children. The media and politicians gloss over that hard question and immediately jump to asking how soon they can pass the next useless firearm regulation.

We need a serious national conversation focusing on why a young man would commit such a vile act, not on how he accomplished it. Conservatives need to stop thinking gun rights are an issue about which we can compromise. Do not fall for the lie that we can give over our Second Amendment rights in exchange for a win on some other policy issue. We need to look at all our civil and natural rights as connected. Compromising with the left on the right to self-defense gives them the green light to stomp on everything else.

Russian Invasion Offered Hard Lesson on Gun Control, Ukrainian Says

Gun control in Ukraine has proved to be highly problematic in the wake of the Russian invasion, a Ukrainian activist told a gathering of journalists and friends of DonorsTrust in Washington recently.

Natalia Melnyk, communications director for the Ukraine-based Bendukidze Free Market Center, said that in Ukraine, before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces invaded, “You could not own handguns legally; only hunting weapons if you had a license.”

“All handguns were ‘award’ weapons, randomly distributed by our Ministry of Defense. Usually, you needed to have some connections to get these weapons,” she said at the event sponsored by DonorsTrust, a nonprofit libertarian- and conservative-leaning donor-advised fund.

Amid the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Melnyk noted the development of arming citizens—but with restrictions and even then not all citizens.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

“In areas not under immediate attack, the government said to these territorial units, ‘If you are not under immediate danger of attack, please return the weapons. We will safely store them in a warehouse. If something happens, you can come and get them.’ Of course, [the Ukrainian people] said, ‘No, thank you.’”

Melnyk criticized the Ukrainian government’s move to arm citizens while at the same time imposing restrictions, such as mandatory storing of guns in a warehouse.

“We do see improvement, but it resembles two steps forward, one step back … because that idea about returning weapons is also very recent. We jumped from that idea to the idea that we do need weapons for self-defense,” she said.

The Ukrainian government is currently discussing further plans for arming citizens, Melnyk said in her June 16 remarks at the City Tavern Club in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington.

“It never was such a big issue in the broader Ukrainian society, because we were a peaceful nation,” she said. “A lot of people honestly believed [and] I was one of them: ‘Why would you need a weapon? We are not going to war, and if you are not a hunter … why do you need it?’”

But after the Russian invasion, “it appears we really do need it,” she said.

Melnyk described the cultural change toward caring about self-defense after Russia invaded. “It was nearly impossible to get a time slot at a shooting range because so many Ukrainians went in to learn how to actually handle a gun, because they have no idea,” she said.

“It’s not the case of the Ukrainian government sending Ukrainian people to die,” Melnyk told The Daily Signal, explaining a common misconception of those observing the Ukrainian crisis from the outside. “This is the conscious decision of thousands of Ukrainians to protect their freedom, protect their land, and to protect the future of their children.”

NPR finally realizes that when seconds count, police are minutes away

When your society has reached a point where you can’t agree on whether or not a man can get pregnant, you know that rational discourse based on shared underlying facts is extremely difficult if not impossible. Generally speaking, but especially so in a society that has reached such a point, the government ought to stay completely out of the news business. Yet, unfortunately, we have taxpayer-funded left-wing propaganda in the form of National Public Radio (NPR).

NPR’s far-Left bias is well-known. Still, it’s amusing to see them finally realize something that gun rights advocates have said all along, that when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

The tragic history of police responding too late to active shooters

Confusion, chaos and wrong information appear to have contributed to law enforcement’s delay in stopping the gunman at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

The gunman spent more than an hour inside the school while police waited outside, authorities say. This was because the incident commander, school district police chief Pete Arredondo, treated the scene as a barricaded-person situation rather than as an active shooter situation.

Details of exactly what went wrong are still hazy as the investigation is ongoing.

Law enforcement experts say what happened in Uvalde is reminiscent of what occurred in prior mass shootings, including the attack at Columbine High School in 1999 and at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018.

As shown by the Uvalde shooting and others before it, police are still making tragic missteps in the most critical moments of active shooter situations — regardless of training.

Police are human beings like the rest of us. They are not supermen or demigods. Exclusively depending on the police for one’s protection is a bad idea because of the fallibility of our fellow humans in uniform.

“Columbine changed everything,” Joseph Giacalone, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired New York City Police Department detective sergeant, told NPR. “When you have an active shooter, you have to end the threat. Because if you don’t, the person continues on killing.”

Cullen went on to say that this protocol has worked. During the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, he wrote, “it probably saved dozens of lives.”

This is something that the gun rights community has been screaming from the rooftops for a long time. Stopping aggression that’s imminent or already underway requires the immediate reciprocal use of defensive force.

Calling cops and waiting is a bad idea when an attack is imminent or already underway, because when cops do arrive, there is no guarantee that their response won’t end up in inaction, such in Uvalde or Parkland, or in shooting the wrong person, as was the case with John Hurley in Arvada, CO.

The article also addresses fear, command, the lack of intelligence (just one meaning of the word, unfortunately), and basic incompetence such as not checking if your radios are actually functioning.

Though this may be the standard now, instances have shown that fear may get the better of responding officers….

“It’s about the unifying of command. It’s about having an unseen coordinator. It’s about somebody dictating what has to go on inside and when somebody has to go on dealing with things outside,” he said. This was clearly a missing piece in Uvalde, Giacalone said….

More work needs to be done to address intelligence available to officers at these scenes, Giacalone said….

The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School occurred just outside the Coral Springs Police Department’s jurisdiction, yet the 911 dispatch center didn’t make any officers aware of the shooting for over four minutes after receiving the first 911 call, according to the commission report analyzing the shooting…

Additionally, officers reported their radios not working at all, causing many not to respond urgently when they heard gunshots.

Although it is good to see NPR tell its listeners and readers that police responses can be slow and ineffective, and address a wide range of factors such as training, command, intelligence, fear, and incompetence, it is a letdown to see NPR not acknowledge the best solution that gun rights advocates have been demanding all along: armed self-defense.

That may take another decade or two, but better late than never, right?

States with higher rate of gun ownership do not correlate with more gun murders, data show

Calls have rung out across the nation demanding gun control laws in a bid to curb violent crimes such as the recent series of mass shootings. Data, however, show that in states with higher percentages of households with at least one gun, crimes are not higher than in states with strict gun laws.

“Gun ownership is higher in states with fewer restrictions, and homicide rates in these states are lower. People can protect themselves,” George Mason University Professor Emerita Joyce Lee Malcolm told Fox News Digital of what she’s found through her research. Malcolm pointed to a study on burglars from 1986 that found 34% of burglars interviewed reported “to having been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.”

Fox News Digital compiled FBI data from 2019 detailing murders and gun murders per 100,000 population for most states, as well as assembled Rand Corporation data released in 2020 showing the percentage of households with at least one firearm in 2016. The data does not reflect the skyrocketing violent crimes of 2020 and likely undercounts the current percentages of homes with at least one firearm as it does not reflect the influx of Americans who rushed to arm themselves in 2020.

Continue reading “”

Shooter Development — the Eleanor Drill by Sage Dynamics

Making rapid transitions from precision to practical accuracy is what the Eleanor Drill from Sage Dynamics is all about, explains Aaron Cowan. He notes that there are thousands of shooting drills out there and that he uses those that suit his needs. If he can’t find a regular exercise that suits his needs, he will formulate a new one that does.

One of those needs that he sees is making the rapid transition from precision to practical accuracy, whether with a handgun or a rifle.

Continue reading “”

The Prepper’s Medical Handbook

The basis of adequate prepping is being prepared for both common and dire events that may occur under the worst of all possible circumstances. These circumstances might include the breakdown in normal emergency support services (such as calling 911), the lack of an ability to obtain additional supplies, and the probability that you will not be able to rely on anyone but members of your immediate group or yourself.

Prepping requires forethought with regard to food, water supplies, power, and protection – all areas of significant technical preparation. Self-reliant medical care is no exception.

This book provides the basis of prevention, identification, and long-term management of survivable medical conditions and can be performed with minimal training. It helps you identify sources of materials you will need and should stock-pile, it discusses storage issues, and directs you to sources for more complex procedures that require advanced concepts of field-expedient techniques used by trained medical persons such as surgeons, anesthesiologists, dentists, or midwifes and obstetricians.